[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHbLzkqhc2yT=rh6ZkjaRJ8RF_NrZM6bXd-nau6jJjbow8vogw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2024 15:16:22 -0700
From: Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>
To: "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>, Helge Deller <deller@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] mm: mmap: Allow mmap(MAP_STACK) to map growable stack
On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 12:49 PM Liam R. Howlett
<Liam.Howlett@...cle.com> wrote:
>
> * Helge Deller <deller@...nel.org> [240911 15:20]:
> > This is a RFC to change the behaviour of mmap(MAP_STACK) to be
> > sufficient to map memory for usage as stack on all architectures.
> > Currently MAP_STACK is a no-op on Linux, and instead MAP_GROWSDOWN
> > has to be used.
> > To clarify, here is the relevant info from the mmap() man page:
> >
> > MAP_GROWSDOWN
> > This flag is used for stacks. It indicates to the kernel virtual
> > memory system that the mapping should extend downward in memory. The
> > return address is one page lower than the memory area that is
> > actually created in the process's virtual address space. Touching an
> > address in the "guard" page below the mapping will cause the mapping
> > to grow by a page. This growth can be repeated until the mapping
> > grows to within a page of the high end of the next lower mapping,
> > at which point touching the "guard" page will result in a SIGSEGV
> > signal.
> >
> > MAP_STACK (since Linux 2.6.27)
> > Allocate the mapping at an address suitable for a process or thread
> > stack.
> >
> > This flag is currently a no-op on Linux. However, by employing this
> > flag, applications can ensure that they transparently obtain support
> > if the flag is implemented in the future. Thus, it is used in the
> > glibc threading implementation to allow for the fact that
> > some architectures may (later) require special treatment for
> > stack allocations. A further reason to employ this flag is
> > portability: MAP_STACK exists (and has an effect) on some
> > other systems (e.g., some of the BSDs).
> >
> > The reason to suggest this change is, that on the parisc architecture the
> > stack grows upwards. As such, using solely the MAP_GROWSDOWN flag will not
> > work. Note that there exists no MAP_GROWSUP flag.
> > By changing the behaviour of MAP_STACK to mark the memory area with the
> > VM_STACK bit (which is VM_GROWSUP or VM_GROWSDOWN depending on the
> > architecture) the MAP_STACK flag does exactly what people would expect on
> > all platforms.
> >
> > This change should have no negative side-effect, as all code which
> > used mmap(MAP_GROWSDOWN | MAP_STACK) still work as before.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Helge Deller <deller@....de>
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/mman.h b/include/linux/mman.h
> > index bcb201ab7a41..66bc72a0cb19 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/mman.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/mman.h
> > @@ -156,6 +156,7 @@ calc_vm_flag_bits(unsigned long flags)
> > return _calc_vm_trans(flags, MAP_GROWSDOWN, VM_GROWSDOWN ) |
> > _calc_vm_trans(flags, MAP_LOCKED, VM_LOCKED ) |
> > _calc_vm_trans(flags, MAP_SYNC, VM_SYNC ) |
> > + _calc_vm_trans(flags, MAP_STACK, VM_STACK ) |
>
> Right now MAP_STACK can be used to set VM_NOHUGEPAGE, but this will
> change the user interface to create a vma that will grow. I'm not
> entirely sure this is okay?
AFAICT, I don't see this is a problem. Currently huge page also skips
the VMAs with VM_GROWS* flags set. See vma_is_temporary_stack().
__thp_vma_allowable_orders() returns 0 if the vma is a temporary
stack.
>
>
> That is mmap(MAP_STACK) would set VM_NOHUGEPAGE right now, with this
> change you'd get VM_NOHUGEPAGE | VM_GROWS<something>
>
> > _calc_vm_trans(flags, MAP_STACK, VM_NOHUGEPAGE) |
> > arch_calc_vm_flag_bits(flags);
> > }
> >
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists