[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170621202751.GA29638@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 22:27:51 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
kernel test robot <xiaolong.ye@...el.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, LKP <lkp@...org>
Subject: Re: [lkp-robot] [mm] 1be7107fbe: kernel_BUG_at_mm/mmap.c
On 06/21, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 12:33 PM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
> > - if (unlikely(address + 65536 + 32 * sizeof(unsigned long) < regs->sp)) {
> > +if (0) if (unlikely(address + 65536 + 32 * sizeof(unsigned long) < regs->sp)) {
>
> This smells bad.
Yes.
> That test is not about grow-down or even the guard page. That test is
> that it's always wrong to grow down the stack below %esp.
Sure.
but let me repeat that this test was essentially dismissed when the stack
guard page was introduced. Simply because do_page_pault() never hits (before
the recent patch) this need-to-grow-VM_GROWSDOWN-vma path if the stack grows
by less than PAGE_SIZE.
IOP. Suppose that an application does
char * p = mmap(MAP_GROWSDOWN);
for (;;)
*p-- = 'x';
before the "larger stack guard gap, between vmas" change the stack was
enlarged by do_anonymous_page(), __do_page_fault() didn't hit this path.
Now __do_page_fault() tries to expand the stack itself, and this check
fails.
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists