On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 04:50:46PM -0500, enh wrote: > yeah, at this point i should (a) drag in +cferris who may have actual > experience of this and (b) admit that iirc i've never personally seen > _evidence_ of this, just claims. most famously in the chrome source... > if you `grep -r /proc/.*/maps` you'll find lots of examples, but > something like https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/main/base/debug/proc_maps_linux.h#61 > is quite representative of the "folklore" in this area. That folklore is 100% based on a true story! I'm not sure that all of the details are precisely correct, but it's true enough that I wouldn't quibble with it. In fact, we want to make it worse. Because the mmap_lock is such a huge point of contention, we want to read /proc/PID/maps protected only by RCU. That will relax the guarantees to: a. If a VMA existed and was not modified during the duration of the read, it will definitely be returned. b. If a VMA was added during the call, it might be returned. c. If a VMA was removed during the call, it might be returned. d. If an address was covered by a VMA before the call and that VMA was modified during the call, you might get the prior or posterior state of the VMA. And you might get both! What might be confusing: e. If VMA A is added, then VMA B is added, your call might show you VMA B and not VMA A. f. Similarly for deleted. g. If you have, say, a VMA from (4000-9000) and you mprotect the region (5000-6000), you might see: 4000-9000 oldA or 4000-5000 newA 4000-9000 oldA or 4000-5000 newA 5000-6000 newB 4000-9000 oldA or 4000-5000 newA 5000-6000 newB 6000-9000 newC (it's possible other combinations might be visible; i'm not working on the details of this right now) We shouldn't be able to _skip_ a VMA. That seems far worse than returning duplicates; if your maps parser sees duplicates it can either try to figure it out itself, or retry the whole read.
