lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  linux-cve-announce  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aaddfd0b-216e-48fe-b48f-35c78eabcf9a@arm.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2025 17:15:50 +0530
From: Dev Jain <dev.jain@....com>
To: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>
Cc: Aboorva Devarajan <aboorvad@...ux.ibm.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
 Liam.Howlett@...cle.com, shuah@...nel.org, pfalcato@...e.de,
 david@...hat.com, ziy@...dia.com, baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com,
 npache@...hat.com, ryan.roberts@....com, baohua@...nel.org,
 linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, donettom@...ux.ibm.com, ritesh.list@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] mm/selftests: Fix virtual_address_range test issues.


On 18/06/25 5:07 pm, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 04:58:56PM +0530, Dev Jain wrote:
>> MAP_CHUNK_SIZE was chosen randomly. Good to see it translates into something logical : )
>>
>> So I guess I am correct, if we can find two VMAs (except at the edge of the high addr boundary)
>> with a gap of greater than MAP_CHUNK_SIZE then there is a bug in mmap().
> No haha, not at all!! Firstly fixed addressed override a lot of this, secondly
> the 256 page gap (which is configurable btw) is only applicable for mappings
> below a stack (in stack grow down arch).

Sorry, I was making that assertion w.r.t this specific selftest. What the test
is doing is exhausting VA space without passing a hint or MAP_FIXED. With this
context, where does this assertion fail? One of them will be if the stack guard
gap is more than 256 pages.

Also, note that the test hasn't reported frequent failures post my change, so
in general settings, w.r.t this test, the assertion experimentally seems to
be true : )

>
> This assumption is totally incorrect, sorry. I'd suggest making assertions about
> this is really not all that useful, as things vary by arch and kernel
> configuration.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ