Re: [PATCH 01/18] mm: introduce MAP_SHARED_VALIDATE, a mechanism to safely define new mmap flags

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 22.11.2017 20:53, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 08:52:37AM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 4:02 AM, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On 11/01/2017 04:36 PM, Jan Kara wrote:
>>>> From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>
>>>> The mmap(2) syscall suffers from the ABI anti-pattern of not validating
>>>> unknown flags. However, proposals like MAP_SYNC need a mechanism to
>>>> define new behavior that is known to fail on older kernels without the
>>>> support. Define a new MAP_SHARED_VALIDATE flag pattern that is
>>>> guaranteed to fail on all legacy mmap implementations.
>>>
>>> So I'm trying to make sense of this together with Michal's attempt for
>>> MAP_FIXED_SAFE [1] where he has to introduce a completely new flag
>>> instead of flag modifier exactly for the reason of not validating
>>> unknown flags. And my conclusion is that because MAP_SHARED_VALIDATE
>>> implies MAP_SHARED and excludes MAP_PRIVATE, MAP_FIXED_SAFE as a
>>> modifier cannot build on top of this. Wouldn't thus it be really better
>>> long-term to introduce mmap3 at this point? ...
>>
>> We have room to define MAP_PRIVATE_VALIDATE in MAP_TYPE on every arch
>> except parisc. Can we steal an extra bit for MAP_TYPE from somewhere
>> else on parisc?
> 
> It looks like 0x08 should work.

I posted an RFC to the parisc mailing list for that:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9970553/

Basically this is (for parisc only):
-#define MAP_TYPE	0x03		/* Mask for type of mapping */
+#define MAP_TYPE	(MAP_SHARED|MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_RESRVD1|MAP_RESRVD2) /* Mask for type of mapping */
 #define MAP_FIXED	0x04		/* Interpret addr exactly */
+#define MAP_RESRVD1	0x08		/* reserved for 3rd bit of MAP_TYPE */
 #define MAP_ANONYMOUS	0x10		/* don't use a file */
+#define MAP_RESRVD2	0x20		/* reserved for 4th bit of MAP_TYPE */

> But I don't have an HPUX machine around
> to check that HP didn't use that bit for something else.

We completely dropped support for HPUX binaries, so it's not relvant any longer. 

> It'd probably help to cc the linux-parisc mailing list when asking
> questions about PARISC, eh?

Yes, please.

Helge



[Index of Archives]     [Reiser Filesystem Development]     [Ceph FS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux FS]     [Yosemite National Park]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [Linux Media]

  Powered by Linux