[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171113164154.fp5fd2seozbmxcbs@node.shutemov.name>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 19:41:54 +0300
From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, x86@...nel.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/mm: Do not allow non-MAP_FIXED mapping across
DEFAULT_MAP_WINDOW border
On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 04:43:26PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Nov 2017, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>
> > In case of 5-level paging, we don't put any mapping above 47-bit, unless
> > userspace explicitly asked for it.
> >
> > Userspace can ask for allocation from full address space by specifying
> > hint address above 47-bit.
> >
> > Nicholas noticed that current implementation violates this interface:
> > we can get vma partly in high addresses if we ask for a mapping at very
> > end of 47-bit address space.
> >
> > Let's make sure that, when consider hint address for non-MAP_FIXED
> > mapping, start and end of resulting vma are on the same side of 47-bit
> > border.
>
> What happens for mappings with MAP_FIXED which cross the border?
It will succeed with 5-level paging.
It should be safe as with 4-level paging such request would fail and it's
reasonable to expect that userspace is not relying on the failure to
function properly.
--
Kirill A. Shutemov
Powered by blists - more mailing lists