On Wed, 13 Dec 2017 10:25:48 +0100 Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi, > I am resending with some minor updates based on Michael's review and > ask for inclusion. There haven't been any fundamental objections for > the RFC [1] nor the previous version [2]. The biggest discussion > revolved around the naming. There were many suggestions flowing > around MAP_REQUIRED, MAP_EXACT, MAP_FIXED_NOCLOBBER, MAP_AT_ADDR, > MAP_FIXED_NOREPLACE etc... I like MAP_FIXED_CAREFUL :) > I am afraid we can bikeshed this to death and there will still be > somebody finding yet another better name. Therefore I've decided to > stick with my original MAP_FIXED_SAFE. Why? Well, because it keeps the > MAP_FIXED prefix which should be recognized by developers and _SAFE > suffix should also be clear that all dangerous side effects of the old > MAP_FIXED are gone. > > If somebody _really_ hates this then feel free to nack and resubmit > with a different name you can find a consensus for. I am sorry to be > stubborn here but I would rather have this merged than go over few more > iterations changing the name just because it seems like a good idea > now. My experience tells me that chances are that the name will turn out > to be "suboptimal" anyway over time. > > Some more background: > This has started as a follow up discussion [3][4] resulting in the > runtime failure caused by hardening patch [5] which removes MAP_FIXED > from the elf loader because MAP_FIXED is inherently dangerous as it > might silently clobber an existing underlying mapping (e.g. stack). The > reason for the failure is that some architectures enforce an alignment > for the given address hint without MAP_FIXED used (e.g. for shared or > file backed mappings). > > One way around this would be excluding those archs which do alignment > tricks from the hardening [6]. The patch is really trivial but it has > been objected, rightfully so, that this screams for a more generic > solution. We basically want a non-destructive MAP_FIXED. > > The first patch introduced MAP_FIXED_SAFE which enforces the given > address but unlike MAP_FIXED it fails with EEXIST if the given range > conflicts with an existing one. The flag is introduced as a completely > new one rather than a MAP_FIXED extension because of the backward > compatibility. We really want a never-clobber semantic even on older > kernels which do not recognize the flag. Unfortunately mmap sucks wrt. > flags evaluation because we do not EINVAL on unknown flags. On those > kernels we would simply use the traditional hint based semantic so the > caller can still get a different address (which sucks) but at least not > silently corrupt an existing mapping. I do not see a good way around > that. Except we won't export expose the new semantic to the userspace at > all. > > It seems there are users who would like to have something like that. > Jemalloc has been mentioned by Michael Ellerman [7] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/87efp1w7vy.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. It would be useful to get feedback from jemalloc developers (please). I'll add some cc's. > Florian Weimer has mentioned the following: > : glibc ld.so currently maps DSOs without hints. This means that the kernel > : will map right next to each other, and the offsets between them a completely > : predictable. We would like to change that and supply a random address in a > : window of the address space. If there is a conflict, we do not want the > : kernel to pick a non-random address. Instead, we would try again with a > : random address. > > John Hubbard has mentioned CUDA example > : a) Searches /proc/<pid>/maps for a "suitable" region of available > : VA space. "Suitable" generally means it has to have a base address > : within a certain limited range (a particular device model might > : have odd limitations, for example), it has to be large enough, and > : alignment has to be large enough (again, various devices may have > : constraints that lead us to do this). > : > : This is of course subject to races with other threads in the process. > : > : Let's say it finds a region starting at va. > : > : b) Next it does: > : p = mmap(va, ...) > : > : *without* setting MAP_FIXED, of course (so va is just a hint), to > : attempt to safely reserve that region. If p != va, then in most cases, > : this is a failure (almost certainly due to another thread getting a > : mapping from that region before we did), and so this layer now has to > : call munmap(), before returning a "failure: retry" to upper layers. > : > : IMPROVEMENT: --> if instead, we could call this: > : > : p = mmap(va, ... MAP_FIXED_SAFE ...) > : > : , then we could skip the munmap() call upon failure. This > : is a small thing, but it is useful here. (Thanks to Piotr > : Jaroszynski and Mark Hairgrove for helping me get that detail > : exactly right, btw.) > : > : c) After that, CUDA suballocates from p, via: > : > : q = mmap(sub_region_start, ... MAP_FIXED ...) > : > : Interestingly enough, "freeing" is also done via MAP_FIXED, and > : setting PROT_NONE to the subregion. Anyway, I just included (c) for > : general interest. > > Atomic address range probing in the multithreaded programs in general > sounds like an interesting thing to me. > > The second patch simply replaces MAP_FIXED use in elf loader by > MAP_FIXED_SAFE. I believe other places which rely on MAP_FIXED should > follow. Actually real MAP_FIXED usages should be docummented properly > and they should be more of an exception. -- 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>
