On 04/11/2018 06:40 PM, Jann Horn wrote: > On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 6:36 PM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Wed 11-04-18 17:37:46, Jann Horn wrote: >>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 2:04 PM, <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx> >>>> >>>> 4.17+ kernels offer a new MAP_FIXED_NOREPLACE flag which allows the caller to >>>> atomicaly probe for a given address range. >>>> >>>> [wording heavily updated by John Hubbard <jhubbard@xxxxxxxxxx>] >>>> Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx> >>>> --- >>>> Hi, >>>> Andrew's sent the MAP_FIXED_NOREPLACE to Linus for the upcoming merge >>>> window. So here we go with the man page update. >>>> >>>> man2/mmap.2 | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>> 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/man2/mmap.2 b/man2/mmap.2 >>>> index ea64eb8f0dcc..f702f3e4eba2 100644 >>>> --- a/man2/mmap.2 >>>> +++ b/man2/mmap.2 >>>> @@ -261,6 +261,27 @@ Examples include >>>> and the PAM libraries >>>> .UR http://www.linux-pam.org >>>> .UE . >>>> +Newer kernels >>>> +(Linux 4.17 and later) have a >>>> +.B MAP_FIXED_NOREPLACE >>>> +option that avoids the corruption problem; if available, MAP_FIXED_NOREPLACE >>>> +should be preferred over MAP_FIXED. >>> >>> This still looks wrong to me. There are legitimate uses for MAP_FIXED, >>> and for most users of MAP_FIXED that I'm aware of, MAP_FIXED_NOREPLACE >>> wouldn't work while MAP_FIXED works perfectly well. >>> >>> MAP_FIXED is for when you have already reserved the targeted memory >>> area using another VMA; MAP_FIXED_NOREPLACE is for when you haven't. >>> Please don't make it sound as if MAP_FIXED is always wrong. >> >> Well, this was suggested by John. I think, nobody is objecting that >> MAP_FIXED has legitimate usecases. The above text just follows up on >> the previous section which emphasises the potential memory corruption >> problems and it suggests that a new flag is safe with that regards. >> >> If you have specific wording that would be better I am open for changes. > > I guess I'd probably also want to change the previous text; so I > should probably send a followup patch once this one has landed. > >>>> +.TP >>>> +.BR MAP_FIXED_NOREPLACE " (since Linux 4.17)" >>>> +Similar to MAP_FIXED with respect to the >>>> +.I >>>> +addr >>>> +enforcement, but different in that MAP_FIXED_NOREPLACE never clobbers a pre-existing >>>> +mapped range. If the requested range would collide with an existing >>>> +mapping, then this call fails with >>>> +.B EEXIST. >>>> +This flag can therefore be used as a way to atomically (with respect to other >>>> +threads) attempt to map an address range: one thread will succeed; all others >>>> +will report failure. Please note that older kernels which do not recognize this >>>> +flag will typically (upon detecting a collision with a pre-existing mapping) >>>> +fall back to a "non-MAP_FIXED" type of behavior: they will return an address that >>>> +is different than the requested one. Therefore, backward-compatible software >>>> +should check the returned address against the requested address. >>>> .TP >>>> .B MAP_GROWSDOWN >>>> This flag is used for stacks. >>>> @@ -487,6 +508,12 @@ is not a valid file descriptor (and >>>> .B MAP_ANONYMOUS >>>> was not set). >>>> .TP >>>> +.B EEXIST >>>> +range covered by >>>> +.IR addr , >>>> +.IR length >>>> +is clashing with an existing mapping. >>> >>> Maybe add something like ", and MAP_FIXED_NOREPLACE was specified"? I >>> think most manpages explicitly document which error conditions can be >>> triggered by which flags. >> >> sure, no objection from me. I've added the suggested piece from Jann to the EEXIST error description. Cheers, Michael -- Michael Kerrisk Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/ Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/
