linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 3/3] man/man2/mremap.2: describe previously undocumented shrink behaviour

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <uvh2e2jjdk44tdwrhmnd46atwgdzwwmny4kczxqv2vm33gjqpp@63lsupn6y2u6>
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2025 23:36:26 +0200
From: Alejandro Colomar <alx@...nel.org>
To: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>
Cc: linux-man@...r.kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, 
	Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>, Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, 
	Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, 
	"Liam R . Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, 
	Pedro Falcato <pfalcato@...e.de>, Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/3] man/man2/mremap.2: describe previously
 undocumented shrink behaviour

Hi Lorenzo,

On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 03:59:39PM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> There is pre-existing logic that appears to be undocumented for an mremap()
> shrink operation, where it turns out that the usual 'input range must span
> a single mapping' requirement no longer applies.
> 
> In fact, it turns out that the input range specified by [old_address,
> old_address + old_size) may span any number of mappings.
> 
> If shrinking in-place (that is, neither the MREMAP_FIXED nor
> MREMAP_DONTUNMAP flags are specified), then the new span may also span any
> number of VMAs - [old_address, old_address + new_size).
> 
> If shrinking and moving, the range specified by [old_address, old_address +
> new_size) must span a single VMA.
> 
> There must be at least one VMA contained within the [old_address,
> old_address + old_size) range, and old_address must be within the range of
> a VMA.
> 
> Explicitly document this.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>
> ---
>  man/man2/mremap.2 | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>  1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/man/man2/mremap.2 b/man/man2/mremap.2
> index 6d14bf627..53d4eda29 100644
> --- a/man/man2/mremap.2
> +++ b/man/man2/mremap.2
> @@ -47,8 +47,35 @@ The
>  .B MREMAP_DONTUNMAP
>  flag may also be specified.
>  .P
> -If the operation is not
> -simply moving mappings,
> +Equally, if the operation performs a shrink,
> +that is if

Missing comma.

> +.I old_size
> +is greater than
> +.IR new_size ,
> +then
> +.I old_size
> +may also span multiple mappings
> +which do not have to be
> +adjacent to one another.

I'm wondering if there's a missing comma or not before 'which'.
The meaning of the sentence would be different.

So, I should ask:

Does old_size > new_size mean that old_size may span multiple mappings
and you're commenting that multiple mappings need not be adjacent?

Or are multiple mappings always allowed and old_size > new_size allows
non-adjacent ones?

I suspect it's the former, right?  Then, it's missing a comma, right?


Other than this, the patch looks good.


Have a lovely night!
Alex

> +If this shrink is performed
> +in-place,
> +that is,
> +neither
> +.BR MREMAP_FIXED ,
> +nor
> +.B MREMAP_DONTUNMAP
> +are specified,
> +.I new_size
> +may also span multiple VMAs.
> +However, if the range is moved,
> +then
> +.I new_size
> +must span only a single mapping.
> +.P
> +If the operation is neither a
> +.B MREMAP_FIXED
> +move
> +nor a shrink,
>  then
>  .I old_size
>  must span only a single mapping.
> -- 
> 2.50.1
> 

-- 
<https://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)