From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 521C8EC873F for ; Thu, 7 Sep 2023 16:14:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S237763AbjIGQOE (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Sep 2023 12:14:04 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:58460 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S236236AbjIGQNQ (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Sep 2023 12:13:16 -0400 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [192.55.52.43]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AA9C993E0; Thu, 7 Sep 2023 08:44:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1694101470; x=1725637470; h=message-id:date:mime-version:subject:to:cc:references: from:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=nvAw9m6A6x9DDVOWLkP+zkRHDGaDC+Y39YscRQTquf0=; b=UTFIkH+tBGzunZkC8ebiv+ch3kc0iaS4HDTDh8WI0p+olmr3dkE+Ylr1 v+DV1w9z50tYXBx0Ms7khq7QUxUDXQow9urn7RqjXnBMyuZKno+uMAHlM Q+ZxEjzXnPtMcCz+ZApeqkjVEwDWa3evo49IrRfqEvCbygPwBzIHTpDDu YJruhYodPyhN5O3szqhvGGMYIzupAAqVOKgSckq1Xk69C2kVZQhBC+c94 97Uba10+nDOiJo83t+vlev2IeRb1eM1a5riCLnHMYvo2gI1glFFIqEFow Yl0SOJLKYnhKkR1F30TXAH6RqKhlGcm/Fu0fMOyyHuH6SmssqpWXB3xIB A==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,10826"; a="463769143" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.02,235,1688454000"; d="scan'208";a="463769143" Received: from orsmga007.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.58]) by fmsmga105.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 07 Sep 2023 08:43:08 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,10826"; a="735563105" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.02,235,1688454000"; d="scan'208";a="735563105" Received: from ningle-mobl2.amr.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.209.13.77]) ([10.209.13.77]) by orsmga007-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 07 Sep 2023 08:43:07 -0700 Message-ID: <523020c5-87fe-6aa3-4c30-c0ca94d36f8f@intel.com> Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2023 08:43:07 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.15.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] proc/kcore: Do not map unaccepted memory Content-Language: en-US To: Adrian Hunter , "Kirill A. Shutemov" , Borislav Petkov , Andrew Morton Cc: Vlastimil Babka , Mike Rapoport , Lorenzo Stoakes , Tom Lendacky , Baoquan He , Vivek Goyal , Dave Young , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-coco@lists.linux.dev, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, kexec@lists.infradead.org References: <20230906073902.4229-1-adrian.hunter@intel.com> <20230906073902.4229-3-adrian.hunter@intel.com> From: Dave Hansen In-Reply-To: <20230906073902.4229-3-adrian.hunter@intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 9/6/23 00:39, Adrian Hunter wrote: > Do not map unaccepted memory because it can cause the guest to fail. > > For /proc/kcore, which is read-only and does not support mmap, this means a > read of unaccepted memory will return zeros. I'm confused by this changelog and subject. What is getting "mapped" here if mmap() isn't in play?