Message-ID: <CAC_TJvdXNJSqNjRQS92jAOBUJ+3qyS9+eZAGSJMokGQQHaxqoQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2025 21:24:22 -0700
From: Kalesh Singh <kaleshsingh@...gle.com>
To: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
Cc: Pedro Falcato <pfalcato@...e.de>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com, 
	kernel-team@...roid.com, android-mm@...gle.com, 
	David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.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>, linux-mm@...ck.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: centralize and fix max map count limit checking

On Fri, Sep 5, 2025 at 12:44 PM Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 04, 2025 at 12:46:34AM +0100, Pedro Falcato wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 03, 2025 at 04:24:35PM -0700, Kalesh Singh wrote:
> > > The check against the max map count (sysctl_max_map_count) was
> > > open-coded in several places. This led to inconsistent enforcement
> > > and subtle bugs where the limit could be exceeded.
> > >
> > > For example, some paths would check map_count > sysctl_max_map_count
> > > before allocating a new VMA and incrementing the count, allowing the
> > > process to reach sysctl_max_map_count + 1:
> > >
> > >     int do_brk_flags(...)
> > >     {
> > >         if (mm->map_count > sysctl_max_map_count)
> > >             return -ENOMEM;
> > >
> > >         /* We can get here with mm->map_count == sysctl_max_map_count */
> > >
> > >         vma = vm_area_alloc(mm);
> > >         ...
> > >         mm->map_count++   /* We've now exceeded the threshold. */
> > >     }
> >
> > I think this should be fixed separately, and sent for stable.
> >
> > >
> > > To fix this and unify the logic, introduce a new function,
> > > exceeds_max_map_count(), to consolidate the check. All open-coded
> > > checks are replaced with calls to this new function, ensuring the
> > > limit is applied uniformly and correctly.
> >
> > Thanks! In general I like the idea.
> >
> > >
> > > To improve encapsulation, sysctl_max_map_count is now static to
> > > mm/mmap.c. The new helper also adds a rate-limited warning to make
> > > debugging applications that exhaust their VMA limit easier.
> > >
> > > Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
> > > Cc: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
> > > Cc: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Kalesh Singh <kaleshsingh@...gle.com>
> > > ---
> > >  include/linux/mm.h | 11 ++++++++++-
> > >  mm/mmap.c          | 15 ++++++++++++++-
> > >  mm/mremap.c        |  7 ++++---
> > >  mm/nommu.c         |  2 +-
> > >  mm/util.c          |  1 -
> > >  mm/vma.c           |  6 +++---
> > >  6 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/mm.h b/include/linux/mm.h
> > > index 1ae97a0b8ec7..d4e64e6a9814 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/mm.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/mm.h
> > > @@ -192,7 +192,16 @@ static inline void __mm_zero_struct_page(struct page *page)
> > >  #define MAPCOUNT_ELF_CORE_MARGIN   (5)
> > >  #define DEFAULT_MAX_MAP_COUNT      (USHRT_MAX - MAPCOUNT_ELF_CORE_MARGIN)
> > >
> > > -extern int sysctl_max_map_count;
> > > +/**
> > > + * exceeds_max_map_count - check if a VMA operation would exceed max_map_count
> > > + * @mm: The memory descriptor for the process.
> > > + * @new_vmas: The number of new VMAs the operation will create.
> > > + *
> > > + * Returns true if the operation would cause the number of VMAs to exceed
> > > + * the sysctl_max_map_count limit, false otherwise. A rate-limited warning
> > > + * is logged if the limit is exceeded.
> > > + */
> > > +extern bool exceeds_max_map_count(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned int new_vmas);
> >
> > No new "extern" in func declarations please.
> >
> > >
> > >  extern unsigned long sysctl_user_reserve_kbytes;
> > >  extern unsigned long sysctl_admin_reserve_kbytes;
> > > diff --git a/mm/mmap.c b/mm/mmap.c
> > > index 7306253cc3b5..693a0105e6a5 100644
> > > --- a/mm/mmap.c
> > > +++ b/mm/mmap.c
> > > @@ -374,7 +374,7 @@ unsigned long do_mmap(struct file *file, unsigned long addr,
> > >             return -EOVERFLOW;
> > >
> > >     /* Too many mappings? */
> > > -   if (mm->map_count > sysctl_max_map_count)
> > > +   if (exceeds_max_map_count(mm, 0))
> > >             return -ENOMEM;
> >
> > If the brk example is incorrect, isn't this also wrong? /me is confused
> > >
> > >     /*
> > > @@ -1504,6 +1504,19 @@ struct vm_area_struct *_install_special_mapping(
> > >  int sysctl_legacy_va_layout;
> > >  #endif
> > >
> > > +static int sysctl_max_map_count __read_mostly = DEFAULT_MAX_MAP_COUNT;
> > > +
> > > +bool exceeds_max_map_count(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned int new_vmas)
> > > +{
> > > +   if (unlikely(mm->map_count + new_vmas > sysctl_max_map_count)) {
> > > +           pr_warn_ratelimited("%s (%d): Map count limit %u exceeded\n",
> > > +                               current->comm, current->pid,
> > > +                               sysctl_max_map_count);
> >
> > I'm not entirely sold on the map count warn, even if it's rate limited. It
> > sounds like something you can hit in nasty edge cases and nevertheless flood
> > your dmesg (more frustrating if you can't fix the damn program).
>
> How about dynamic_debug?
>
> a1394bddf9b6, mm: page_alloc: dump migrate-failed pages

Hi Minchan,

Thanks for the suggestion to use dynamic_debug. As you may have seen
in the discussion, it has moved to a capacity based helper
(vma_count_remaining()) based on feedback for better readability at
the call sites. Unfortunately, a side effect of that design is that
we've lost the single, centralized failure point where a dynamic_debug
message could be placed. I'm going to stick with that due to the
readability benefits. However, you've raised a good point about
observability. For this I am planning to add force increment/decrement
via vma_count_* helpers and perhaps we can add trace events in the
helpers to get similar observability.

Thanks,
Kalesh

Powered by blists - more mailing lists