On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 6:13 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov
<kirill.shutemov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> This patch introduces two new prctl(2) handles to manage maximum virtual
> address available to userspace to map.
>
> On x86, 5-level paging enables 56-bit userspace virtual address space.
> Not all user space is ready to handle wide addresses. It's known that
> at least some JIT compilers use higher bits in pointers to encode their
> information. It collides with valid pointers with 5-level paging and
> leads to crashes.
>
> The patch aims to address this compatibility issue.
>
> MM would use the address as upper limit of virtual address available to
> map by userspace, instead of TASK_SIZE.
>
> The limit will be equal to TASK_SIZE everywhere, but the machine
> with 5-level paging enabled. In this case, the default limit would be
> (1UL << 47) - PAGE_SIZE. It’s current x86-64 TASK_SIZE_MAX with 4-level
> paging which known to be safe.
I think this patch need to be split up. In particular, the addition
and use of mmap_max_addr() should be its own patch that doesn't change
any semantics.
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/mmu_context.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/mmu_context.h
> index 306c7e12af55..50bdfd6ab866 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/mmu_context.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/mmu_context.h
> @@ -117,6 +117,7 @@ static inline int init_new_context(struct task_struct *tsk,
> }
> #endif
> init_new_context_ldt(tsk, mm);
> + mm->context.max_vaddr = MAX_VADDR_DEFAULT;
Is this actually correct for 32-bit binaries? Although, given the
stuff Dmitry is working on, it might pay to separately track the
32-bit and 64-bit limits per mm. If you haven't been following it,
Dmitry is trying to fix a bug in which an explicit 32-bit syscall
(int80 or similar) in an otherwise 64-bit process can allocate a VMA
above 4GB that gets truncated.
Also, why the macro? Why not just put the number in here?
> -#define TASK_SIZE_MAX ((1UL << 47) - PAGE_SIZE)
> +#define TASK_SIZE_MAX ((1UL << __VIRTUAL_MASK_SHIFT) - PAGE_SIZE)
This should be in the
> -#define STACK_TOP TASK_SIZE
> +#define STACK_TOP mmap_max_addr()
Off the top of my head, this looks wrong. The 32-bit check got lost, I think.
> +unsigned long set_max_vaddr(unsigned long addr)
> +{
Perhaps this function could set a different field depending on
is_compat_syscall().
Anyway, can you and Dmitry try to reconcile your patches?
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href
