linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] mm/mmap.c: don't unmap the overlapping VMA(s)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 8 Apr 2016 17:32:29 +0200
From:	Piotr Kwapulinski <kwapulinski.piotr@...il.com>
To:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	mtk.manpages@...il.com, cmetcalf@...lanox.com, arnd@...db.de,
	viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, mszeredi@...e.cz, dave@...olabs.net,
	kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com, mingo@...nel.org,
	dan.j.williams@...el.com, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
	koct9i@...il.com, hannes@...xchg.org, jack@...e.cz,
	xiexiuqi@...wei.com, iamjoonsoo.kim@....com, oleg@...hat.com,
	gang.chen.5i5j@...il.com, aarcange@...hat.com,
	aryabinin@...tuozzo.com, rientjes@...gle.com, denc716@...il.com,
	toshi.kani@....com, ldufour@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	kuleshovmail@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] mm/mmap.c: don't unmap the overlapping VMA(s)

On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 06:31:09PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 07-04-16 18:11:29, Piotr Kwapulinski wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 05:26:43PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > > On 04/04/2016 09:31 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > >On Sat 02-04-16 21:17:31, Piotr Kwapulinski wrote:
> > > >>Currently the mmap(MAP_FIXED) discards the overlapping part of the
> > > >>existing VMA(s).
> > > >>Introduce the new MAP_DONTUNMAP flag which forces the mmap to fail
> > > >>with ENOMEM whenever the overlapping occurs and MAP_FIXED is set.
> > > >>No existing mapping(s) is discarded.
> > > >
> > > >You forgot to tell us what is the use case for this new flag.
> > > 
> > > Exactly. Also, returning ENOMEM is strange, EINVAL might be a better match,
> > > otherwise how would you distinguish a "geunine" ENOMEM from passing a wrong
> > > address?
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > Thanks to all for suggestions. I'll fix them.
> > 
> > The example use case:
> > #include <stdio.h>
> > #include <string.h>
> > #include <sys/mman.h>
> > 
> > void main(void)
> > {
> >   void* addr = (void*)0x1000000;
> >   size_t size = 0x600000;
> >   void* start = 0;
> >   start = mmap(addr,
> >                size,
> >                PROT_WRITE,
> >                MAP_PRIVATE | MAP_ANONYMOUS | MAP_FIXED,
> >                -1, 0);
> > 
> >   strcpy(start, "PPPP");
> >   printf("%s\n", start);        // == PPPP
> > 
> >   addr = (void*)0x1000000;
> >   size = 0x9000;
> >   start = mmap(addr,
> >                size,
> >                PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE,
> >                MAP_PRIVATE | MAP_ANONYMOUS | MAP_FIXED,
> >                -1, 0);
> >   
> >   printf("%s\n", start);        // != PPPP
> > }
> > 
> > Another use case, this time with huge pages in action.
> > The limit configured in proc's nr_hugepages is exceeded.
> > mmap unmaps the area and fails. No new mapping is created.
> > The program segfaults.
> 
> Yes and this is the standard behavior for ages. So _why_ somebody wants
> non-default behavior. When I've asked for the use case I meant a real
> life code (not just an example snippet) which cannot cope with the
> standard semantic. In other words why this cannot be handled in the
> userspace and we have to add a new API which we have to maintain for
> ever?

Ok, I got it. Thanks for feedback.