On 09/20/2017 12:25 AM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: > Hello Mike, > > On 09/19/2017 11:42 PM, Mike Kravetz wrote: >> v2: Fix incorrect wording noticed by Jann Horn. >> Remove deprecated and memfd_create discussion as suggested >> by Florian Weimer. >> >> Since at least the 2.6 time frame, mremap would create a new mapping >> of the same pages if 'old_size == 0'. It would also leave the original >> mapping. This was used to create a 'duplicate mapping'. >> >> A recent change was made to mremap so that an attempt to create a >> duplicate a private mapping will fail. >> >> Document the 'old_size == 0' behavior and new return code from >> below commit. >> >> commit dba58d3b8c5045ad89c1c95d33d01451e3964db7 >> Author: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@xxxxxxxxxx> >> Date: Wed Sep 6 16:20:55 2017 -0700 >> >> mm/mremap: fail map duplication attempts for private mappings >> >> Signed-off-by: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@xxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> man2/mremap.2 | 21 ++++++++++++++++++++- >> 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/man2/mremap.2 b/man2/mremap.2 >> index 98643c640..235984a96 100644 >> --- a/man2/mremap.2 >> +++ b/man2/mremap.2 >> @@ -58,6 +58,20 @@ may be provided; see the description of >> .B MREMAP_FIXED >> below. >> .PP >> +If the value of \fIold_size\fP is zero, and \fIold_address\fP refers to >> +a shareable mapping (see >> +.BR mmap (2) >> +.BR MAP_SHARED ) >> +, then >> +.BR mremap () >> +will create a new mapping of the same pages. \fInew_size\fP >> +will be the size of the new mapping and the location of the new mapping >> +may be specified with \fInew_address\fP, see the description of >> +.B MREMAP_FIXED >> +below. If a new mapping is requested via this method, then the >> +.B MREMAP_MAYMOVE >> +flag must also be specified. >> +.PP >> In Linux the memory is divided into pages. >> A user process has (one or) >> several linear virtual memory segments. >> @@ -174,7 +188,12 @@ and >> or >> .B MREMAP_FIXED >> was specified without also specifying >> -.BR MREMAP_MAYMOVE . >> +.BR MREMAP_MAYMOVE ; >> +or \fIold_size\fP was zero and \fIold_address\fP does not refer to a >> +shareable mapping; >> +or \fIold_size\fP was zero and the >> +.BR MREMAP_MAYMOVE >> +flag was not specified. >> .TP >> .B ENOMEM >> The memory area cannot be expanded at the current virtual address, and the > > I've applied this, and added Reviewed-by tags for Florian and Jann. > But, I think it's also worth noting the older, now disallowed, behavior, > and why the behavior was changed. So I added a note in BUGS: > > BUGS > Before Linux 4.14, if old_size was zero and the mapping referred > to by old_address was a private mapping (mmap(2) MAP_PRIVATE), > mremap() created a new private mapping unrelated to the original > mapping. This behavior was unintended and probably unexpected in > user-space applications (since the intention of mremap() is to > create a new mapping based on the original mapping). Since Linux > 4.14, mremap() fails with the error EINVAL in this scenario. > > Does that seem okay? Sorry for the late reply Michael, I've been away for a few days. Yes, the above seems okay. Thanks for your help with this. -- Mike Kravetz -- 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=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
