linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: centralize and fix max map count limit checking

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: <e3lsreaj3gpqgt6l32edvyjbiscekyezhosaew3lgu4xvbwmsv@2bfpvwtl4bpe>
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2025 15:11:46 -0400
From: "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: Kalesh Singh <kaleshsingh@...gle.com>,
        Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, minchan@...nel.org, kernel-team@...roid.com,
        android-mm@...gle.com, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
        Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Pedro Falcato <pfalcato@...e.de>,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: centralize and fix max map count limit checking

* David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> [250904 15:02]:
> On 04.09.25 20:49, Liam R. Howlett wrote:
> > * Kalesh Singh <kaleshsingh@...gle.com> [250904 13:51]:
> > > On Thu, Sep 4, 2025 at 10:42 AM David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > On 04.09.25 19:33, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Sep 04, 2025 at 01:22:51PM -0400, Liam R. Howlett wrote:
> > > > > > > > diff --git a/mm/mremap.c b/mm/mremap.c
> > > > > > > > index e618a706aff5..793fad58302c 100644
> > > > > > > > --- a/mm/mremap.c
> > > > > > > > +++ b/mm/mremap.c
> > > > > > > > @@ -1040,7 +1040,7 @@ static unsigned long prep_move_vma(struct vma_remap_struct *vrm)
> > > > > > > >      * We'd prefer to avoid failure later on in do_munmap:
> > > > > > > >      * which may split one vma into three before unmapping.
> > > > > > > >      */
> > > > > > > > -  if (current->mm->map_count >= sysctl_max_map_count - 3)
> > > > > > > > +  if (exceeds_max_map_count(current->mm, 4))
> > > > > > > >             return -ENOMEM;
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > In my version this would be:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > >      if (map_count_capacity(current->mm) < 4)
> > > > > > >              return -ENOMEM;
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Someone could write map_count_capacity(current->mm) <= 4 and reintroduce
> > > > > > what this is trying to solve.  And with the way it is written in this
> > > > > > patch, someone could pass in the wrong number.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Right, but I think 'capacity' is pretty clear here, if the caller does something
> > > > > silly then that's on them...
> > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I'm not sure this is worth doing.  There are places we allow the count
> > > > > > to go higher.
> > > > > 
> > > > > ...But yeah, it's kinda borderline as to how useful this is.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I _do_ however like the 'put map count in one place statically' rather than
> > > > > having a global, so a minimal version of this could be to just have a helper
> > > > > function that gets the sysctl_max_map_count, e.g.:
> > > > > 
> > > > > if (current->mm->mmap_count >= max_map_count() - 3)
> > > > 
> > > > I enjoy seeing sysctl_max_map_count hidden. But map_count_capacity() is
> > > > even more readable, so I like it.
> > > > 
> > > > I don't complete like the "capacity" term, but I cannot think of
> > > > something better right now. Maybe something around "free" or
> > > > "remaining", not sure.
> > > > 
> > > > I also don't completely like "map_count" (I know, I know, we call it
> > > > like that in structures), because it reminds me of the mapcount ...
> > > > talking somehow about "vmas" would be quite clear.
> > > 
> > > Thanks David, my original implementation started with vma_limit() :).
> > > Maybe something like vma_count_remaining() ?
> > 
> > Yes, reducing this confusion would very much be helpful.  In fact, if
> > you put it in its own function we could change the actual name with
> > lower impact.  map_count vs mapcount is annoying.
> > 
> > vma_headroom() ?
> > additional_vma_space() ?
> 
> VMA space might be interpreted as VA space.

Fair enough.

> 
> I think basing it on "vma_count" would be good.
> 
> vma_count_capacity()
> 
> vma_count_headroom()
> 
> vma_count_remaining()

headroom or remaining have my vote as the clearest.

> 
> vma_count_avail()
> 
> vma_count_left()
>