[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170628175237.GA24868@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2017 19:52:37 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Larry Woodman <lwoodman@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 0/1] expand_downwards: don't require the gap if !vm_prev
See the patch, but actually I have another question...
Now that the stack-guard-page has gone, why do we need to allow to grow
into the previous VM_GROWSDOWN vma? IOW, why we can not simply remove
the VM_GROWSDOWN check in expand_downwards() ?
Yes, this is what the kernel did before the recent changes. But afaics
only because the kernel could not know if the vma->vm_start page is
actually guard or not.
IOW, iiuc before the recent change it was not simple to _disallow_ this,
and that is why it worked. Just for example, suppose an application does
addr = mmap(MAP_GROWSDOWN);
mprotect(addr, PAGE_SIZE, PROT_NONE);
*(addr + PAGE_SIZE) = 0;
and of course this should not fail.
But the the kernel could not know if vm_start == addr + PAGE_SIZE is the
"valid" address, or this vma was expanded before and vm_start is the stack
guard.
Yes, we can probably check anon_vma's as the comment suggests, but imo we
we can just remove the VM_GROWSDOWN case unconditionally.
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists