On 12/13/2017 06:52 PM, Jann Horn wrote: > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:31 AM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> From: John Hubbard <jhubbard@xxxxxxxxxx> [...] >> +.IP >> +Furthermore, this option is extremely hazardous (when used on its own), because >> +it forcibly removes pre-existing mappings, making it easy for a multi-threaded >> +process to corrupt its own address space. > > I think this is worded unfortunately. It is dangerous if used > incorrectly, and it's a good tool when used correctly. > > [...] >> +Thread B need not create a mapping directly; simply making a library call >> +that, internally, uses >> +.I dlopen(3) >> +to load some other shared library, will >> +suffice. The dlopen(3) call will map the library into the process's address >> +space. Furthermore, almost any library call may be implemented using this >> +technique. >> +Examples include brk(2), malloc(3), pthread_create(3), and the PAM libraries >> +(http://www.linux-pam.org). > > This is arkward. This first mentions dlopen(), which is a very niche > case, and then just very casually mentions the much bigger > problem that tons of library functions can allocate memory through > malloc(), causing mmap() calls, sometimes without that even being > a documented property of the function. > Hi Jann, Here is some proposed new wording, to address your two comments above. What do you think of this: NOTE: this option can be hazardous (when used on its own), because it forcibly removes pre-existing mappings, making it easy for a multi- threaded process to corrupt its own address space. For example, thread A looks through /proc/<pid>/maps and locates an available address range, while thread B simultaneously acquires part or all of that same address range. Thread A then calls mmap(MAP_FIXED), effectively overwriting the mapping that thread B created. Thread B need not create a mapping directly; simply making a library call whose implementation calls malloc(3), mmap(), or dlopen(3) will suffice, because those calls all create new mappings. >> +.IP >> +Newer kernels >> +(Linux 4.16 and later) have a >> +.B MAP_FIXED_SAFE >> +option that avoids the corruption problem; if available, MAP_FIXED_SAFE >> +should be preferred over MAP_FIXED. > > This is bad advice. MAP_FIXED is completely safe if you use it on an address > range you've allocated, and it is used in this way by core system libraries to > place multiple VMAs in virtually contiguous memory, for example: [...] > MAP_FIXED is a better solution for these usecases than MAP_FIXED_SAFE, > or whatever it ends up being called. Please remove this advice or, better, > clarify what MAP_FIXED should be used for (creation of virtually contiguous > VMAs) and what MAP_FIXED_SAFE should be used for (attempting to > allocate memory at a fixed address for some reason, with a failure instead of > the normal fallback to using a different address). > Rather than risk another back-and-forth with Michal (who doesn't want any advice on how to use this safely, in the man page), I've simply removed this advice entirely. thanks, -- John Hubbard NVIDIA -- 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>
