| Message ID | 20181127135030.1671-1-i.maximets@samsung.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | memfd fixes. | expand |
Hi. I'm trying to figure out the state of this patch set. Is there any chance for it to be accepted? The first patch needs minor rebase. I could send a new version. BTW, even without the first patch that raised some discussion the last three patches are kind of straightforward and useful. Best regards, Ilya Maximets. On 27.11.2018 16:50, Ilya Maximets wrote: > Version 2: > * First patch changed to just drop the memfd backend > if seals are not supported. > > Ilya Maximets (4): > hostmem-memfd: disable for systems wihtout sealing support > memfd: always check for MFD_CLOEXEC > memfd: set up correct errno if not supported > memfd: improve error messages > > backends/hostmem-memfd.c | 18 ++++++++---------- > tests/vhost-user-test.c | 6 +++--- > util/memfd.c | 10 ++++++++-- > 3 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) >
Hi On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 1:35 PM Ilya Maximets <i.maximets@samsung.com> wrote: > > Hi. > > I'm trying to figure out the state of this patch set. > Is there any chance for it to be accepted? > > The first patch needs minor rebase. I could send a new version. Please do, I prefer the solution proposed in v2: do not register hostmem-memfd if sealing isn't supported (keep sealing=true the default - it's one of the main purpose of memfd imho). Daniel, Eduardo: are you ok with this series for 4.0? > > BTW, even without the first patch that raised some discussion > the last three patches are kind of straightforward and useful. > > Best regards, Ilya Maximets. > > On 27.11.2018 16:50, Ilya Maximets wrote: > > Version 2: > > * First patch changed to just drop the memfd backend > > if seals are not supported. > > > > Ilya Maximets (4): > > hostmem-memfd: disable for systems wihtout sealing support > > memfd: always check for MFD_CLOEXEC > > memfd: set up correct errno if not supported > > memfd: improve error messages > > > > backends/hostmem-memfd.c | 18 ++++++++---------- > > tests/vhost-user-test.c | 6 +++--- > > util/memfd.c | 10 ++++++++-- > > 3 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) > > >
On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 01:50:37PM +0100, Marc-André Lureau wrote: > Hi > > On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 1:35 PM Ilya Maximets <i.maximets@samsung.com> wrote: > > > > Hi. > > > > I'm trying to figure out the state of this patch set. > > Is there any chance for it to be accepted? > > > > The first patch needs minor rebase. I could send a new version. > > Please do, > > I prefer the solution proposed in v2: do not register hostmem-memfd if > sealing isn't supported (keep sealing=true the default - it's one of > the main purpose of memfd imho). > > Daniel, Eduardo: are you ok with this series for 4.0? I prefer the more flexible approach, but I won't object to tieing memfd to sealing support. Regards, Daniel
On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 12:56:14PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 01:50:37PM +0100, Marc-André Lureau wrote: > > Hi > > > > On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 1:35 PM Ilya Maximets <i.maximets@samsung.com> wrote: > > > > > > Hi. > > > > > > I'm trying to figure out the state of this patch set. > > > Is there any chance for it to be accepted? > > > > > > The first patch needs minor rebase. I could send a new version. > > > > Please do, > > > > I prefer the solution proposed in v2: do not register hostmem-memfd if > > sealing isn't supported (keep sealing=true the default - it's one of > > the main purpose of memfd imho). > > > > Daniel, Eduardo: are you ok with this series for 4.0? > > I prefer the more flexible approach, but I won't object to tieing memfd > to sealing support. Daniel, Marc-André: do you know if the libvirt QEMU capability cache is invalidated when the host kernel version changes?
On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 11:12:29AM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 12:56:14PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 01:50:37PM +0100, Marc-André Lureau wrote: > > > Hi > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 1:35 PM Ilya Maximets <i.maximets@samsung.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi. > > > > > > > > I'm trying to figure out the state of this patch set. > > > > Is there any chance for it to be accepted? > > > > > > > > The first patch needs minor rebase. I could send a new version. > > > > > > Please do, > > > > > > I prefer the solution proposed in v2: do not register hostmem-memfd if > > > sealing isn't supported (keep sealing=true the default - it's one of > > > the main purpose of memfd imho). > > > > > > Daniel, Eduardo: are you ok with this series for 4.0? > > > > I prefer the more flexible approach, but I won't object to tieing memfd > > to sealing support. > > Daniel, Marc-André: do you know if the libvirt QEMU capability > cache is invalidated when the host kernel version changes? Yes kernl version is one of the many invalidation criteria: https://libvirt.org/git/?p=libvirt.git;a=blob;f=src/qemu/qemu_capabilities.c;h=c9700193fd0c404c16dd6f334b80255a4d1ba605;hb=HEAD#l4072 Regards, Daniel
Version 2: * First patch changed to just drop the memfd backend if seals are not supported. Ilya Maximets (4): hostmem-memfd: disable for systems wihtout sealing support memfd: always check for MFD_CLOEXEC memfd: set up correct errno if not supported memfd: improve error messages backends/hostmem-memfd.c | 18 ++++++++---------- tests/vhost-user-test.c | 6 +++--- util/memfd.c | 10 ++++++++-- 3 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)