[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFydkG-BgZzry5DrTzueVh9VvEcVJdLV8iOyUphQk=0vpw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 09:57:11 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
Cc: linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>, Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@...e.cz>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Should mmap MAP_LOCKED fail if mm_poppulate fails?
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 9:43 AM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz> wrote:
>
> Hmm, no other thread has the address from the current mmap call except
> for MAP_FIXED (more on that below).
With things like opportunistic SIGSEGV handlers that map/unmap things
as the user takes faults, that's actually not at all guaranteed.
Yeah, it's unusual, but I've seen it, with threaded applications where
people play games with user-space memory management, and do "demand
allocation" with mmap() in response to signals.
Admittedly we already do bad things in mmap(MAP_FIXED) for that case,
since we dropped the vm lock. But at least it shouldn't be any worse
than a thread speculatively touching the pages..
Linus
--
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