On Thu 18-05-17 18:19:52, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 01:43:59PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Mon 15-05-17 15:12:18, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > [...]
> > > @@ -195,6 +207,16 @@ arch_get_unmapped_area_topdown(struct file *filp, const unsigned long addr0,
> > > info.length = len;
> > > info.low_limit = PAGE_SIZE;
> > > info.high_limit = get_mmap_base(0);
> > > +
> > > + /*
> > > + * If hint address is above DEFAULT_MAP_WINDOW, look for unmapped area
> > > + * in the full address space.
> > > + *
> > > + * !in_compat_syscall() check to avoid high addresses for x32.
> > > + */
> > > + if (addr > DEFAULT_MAP_WINDOW && !in_compat_syscall())
> > > + info.high_limit += TASK_SIZE_MAX - DEFAULT_MAP_WINDOW;
> > > +
> > > info.align_mask = 0;
> > > info.align_offset = pgoff << PAGE_SHIFT;
> > > if (filp) {
> >
> > I have two questions/concerns here. The above assumes that any address above
> > 1<<47 will use the _whole_ address space. Is this what we want?
>
> Yes, I believe so.
>
> > What if somebody does mmap(1<<52, ...) because he wants to (ab)use 53+
> > bits for some other purpose? Shouldn't we cap the high_limit by the
> > given address?
>
> This would screw existing semantics of hint address -- "map here if
> free, please".
Well, the given address is just _hint_. We are still allowed to map to a
different place. And it is not specified whether the resulting mapping
is above or below that address. So I do not think it would screw the
existing semantic. Or do I miss something?
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
