From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8ECDC4B049F; Tue, 18 Aug 2026 07:16:41 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1787037402; cv=none; b=IlhSQ1GESFYVOCzOBWQKep/ydtnQ7FCdsflVW5JeVH65RZawiEyeVEZQc6mMcU16t4BnWr+shAQjqUzmdgL0uIZCYsAeQVKVOACfLY4p8zlT7HayvBrYVHFH1ti+nki9A2H5C8wXLeAO+W8lxfTmPvsH2OyGMGlAjJxSt406TZM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1787037402; c=relaxed/simple; bh=An9QRXxQh5c6qDRgEqkWdAra0rKd31au3+d60AnTTqk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=flaeobvuoI7Cuh8ZdOtSYsdXgrBlKPTUxMjEXl1kzj+IEQRLJucEs9V6J5uoIfx5ifh9eaBFgSCXhI579aHzn3lH9bJeOwj01T7qAzZEWjU1t9n6Jd4euPHhrGOcPpZWedQ7iU/K6OE1TJPxllqWaeOx9kQwCryAUbXDuPVQ47M= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=TUWDgzud; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="TUWDgzud" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E94FE1F000E9; Tue, 18 Aug 2026 07:16:35 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1787037401; bh=YSi68YQ1b6ket9ADghC9xT0rrZLBKS9r3cQe8y6Lwd4=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=TUWDgzudrlRbaLYizQ/L+Yv9HhJoPISIWkvwrqqXHkXYQ/P+Mjucy07z+SVpZ1Hp6 1+9KTXdMY5MK6Bl5U6yE7HQU8SyMx5aAVVcmET66QYcsaIErLO2M4LjTbbDfSSVEg9 KUfSLXuY3hio4aRh64O1hzuJa78MJ9tKa9NXlhtwOZBgiSAxwk/PdTOPXEXERacTOZ X89WCmwnRA0sc/SCIGgfkZ4fabn+PEY5vw5/yoDnAjl8sJI6PJHRsDjRb6sEKuE0Tx vLnZB2AJKTRiMH004WUuwyMr/+YxPjxsHhQhdd4C+CpFVTAIHsLSJ91VhJ9qR8sORX rwwRXiAHWZjNQ== Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2026 08:16:19 +0100 From: "Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM)" To: Andrew Morton , Mike Rapoport , David Hildenbrand , "Liam R. Howlett" , Vlastimil Babka , Suren Baghdasaryan , Michal Hocko , Alexei Starovoitov , Daniel Borkmann , "David S. Miller" , Jakub Kicinski , Jesper Dangaard Brouer , John Fastabend , Stanislav Fomichev , James Bottomley , Hagen Paul Pfeifer , Pedro Falcato Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org, Daehyeon Ko <4ncienth@gmail.com>, stable@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/secretmem: properly account locked pages Message-ID: References: <20260814-secretmem-accounting-v1-1-d2f8c677980b@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20260814-secretmem-accounting-v1-1-d2f8c677980b@kernel.org> To preempt the sashiko stuff, both are false positives: 1. The per-process RLIMIT_MEMLOCK limit is on purpose, it's what you'd expect, it matches what io_uring and every other use of the pattern does, and it's strictly _more_ limiting as it's per-process limit vs. total inode usage. 2. It doesn't support fallocate so hole-punching isn't an issue. Pseudo-inodes are used so you can't drop_caches (which is a privileged operation anyway) and secretmem_release() will be called eventually regardless of how things are discarded so there's no possibility of an imbalance. -- Cheers, Lorenzo