[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120614084219.GD22007@linux-sh.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 17:42:20 +0900
From: Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, sjhill@...s.com, ralf@...ux-mips.org,
Borislav Petkov <borislav.petkov@....com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>,
Rob Herring <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
Russell King <rmk+kernel@....linux.org.uk>,
Nicolas Pitre <nico@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: bugs in page colouring code
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 03:29:36PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> ARM & MIPS seem to share essentially the same page colouring code, with
> these two bugs:
>
> COLOUR_ALIGN_DOWN can use the pgoff % shm_align_mask either positively
> or negatively, depending on the address initially found by
> get_unmapped_area
>
> static inline unsigned long COLOUR_ALIGN_DOWN(unsigned long addr,
> unsigned long pgoff)
> {
> unsigned long base = addr & ~shm_align_mask;
> unsigned long off = (pgoff << PAGE_SHIFT) & shm_align_mask;
>
> if (base + off <= addr)
> return base + off;
>
> return base - off;
> }
>
> The fix would be to return an address that is a whole shm_align_mask
> lower: (((base - shm_align_mask) & ~shm_align_mask) + off
'addr' in this case is already adjusted by callers of COLOUR_ALIGN_DOWN(), so
this shouldn't be an issue, unless I'm missing something?
> The second bug relates to MAP_FIXED mappings of files. In the
> MAP_FIXED conditional, arch_get_unmapped_area(_topdown) checks
> whether the mapping is colour aligned, but only for MAP_SHARED
> mappings.
>
> /*
> * We do not accept a shared mapping if it would violate
> * cache aliasing constraints.
> */
> if ((flags & MAP_SHARED) &&
> ((addr - (pgoff << PAGE_SHIFT)) & shm_align_mask))
> return -EINVAL;
>
These observations hold true for other architectures, too. I modelled the
SH implementation off of both MIPS and sparc, where these same patterns
exist. I would be surprised if there are any architectures that do
colouring in a different way.
The logic is such that in the MAP_FIXED case we can't align addr on to some
other boundary, and so anything that violates the aliasing constraints fails.
This is a departure from POSIX, and does occasionally lead to people sending in
patches to "correct" the behaviour for the LTP mmap01 testcase which does
iterative MAP_FIXED|MAP_SHARED PAGE_SIZE apart.
> This fails to take into account that the same file might be mapped
> MAP_SHARED from some programs, and MAP_PRIVATE from another. The
> fix could be a simple as always enforcing colour alignment when we
> are mmapping a file (filp is non-zero).
>
If that combination is possible then defaulting to colour alignment seems
reasonable. Whether that combination is reasonable or not is another matter.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists