Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 16:04:51 +0530
From: Yury Norov <ynorov@caviumnetworks.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
CC: <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>, <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>, <szabolcs.nagy@arm.com>,
        <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>, <cmetcalf@ezchip.com>,
        <philipp.tomsich@theobroma-systems.com>, <joseph@codesourcery.com>,
        <zhouchengming1@huawei.com>, <Prasun.Kapoor@caviumnetworks.com>,
        <agraf@suse.de>, <geert@linux-m68k.org>, <kilobyte@angband.pl>,
        <manuel.montezelo@gmail.com>, <pinskia@gmail.com>,
        <linyongting@huawei.com>, <klimov.linux@gmail.com>,
        <broonie@kernel.org>, <bamvor.zhangjian@huawei.com>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>, <maxim.kuvyrkov@linaro.org>,
        <Nathan_Lynch@mentor.com>, <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>,
        <davem@davemloft.net>, <christoph.muellner@theobroma-systems.com>
Subject: Re: [Question] New mmap64 syscall?
Message-ID: <20161207103451.GA869@yury-N73SV>
References: <20161206185440.GA4654@yury-N73SV>
 <3014428.VXGdOARdm1@wuerfel>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3014428.VXGdOARdm1@wuerfel>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
SpamDiagnosticOutput: 1:99
SpamDiagnosticMetadata: NSPM
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Dec 2016 10:35:03.8603 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN4PR07MB2241
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2532
Lines: 56

On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 10:20:20PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 7, 2016 12:24:40 AM CET Yury Norov wrote:
> > 3. Introduce new mmap64() syscall like this:
> > sys_mmap64(void *addr, size_t len, int prot, int flags, int fd, struct off_pair *off);
> > (The pointer here because otherwise we have 7 args, if simply pass off_hi and
> > off_lo in registers.)
> 
> This wouldn't have to be a pair, just a pointer to a 64-bit number.
> 
> > With new 64-bit interface we can deprecate mmap2(), and generalize all
> > implementations in kernel.
> > 
> > I think we can discuss it because 64-bit is the default size for off_t 
> > in all new 32-bit architectures. So generic solution may take place.
> > 
> > The last question here is how important to support offsets bigger than
> > 2^44 on 32-bit machines in practice? It may be a case for ARM64 servers,
> > which are looking like main aarch64/ilp32 users. If no, we can leave
> > things as is, and just do nothing.
> 
> If there is a use case for larger than 16TB offsets, we should add
> the call on all architectures, probably using your approach 3. I don't
> think that we should treat it as anything special for arm64 though.

>From this point of view, 16+TB offset is a matter of 16+TB storage,
and it's more than real. The other consideration to add it is that
we have 64-bit support for offsets in syscalls like sys_llseek().
So mmap64() will simply extend this support.

I can prepare this patch. Some implementation details I'd like to
clarify:
Syscall declaration:
SYSCALL_DEFINE6(mmap64, unsigned long, addr, unsigned long, len,
                unsigned long, prot, unsigned long, flags,
                unsigned long, fd, unsigned long long *, offset);

sys_mmap64() deprecates sys_mmap2(), and __ARCH_WANT_MMAP2 is
introduced to keep it enabled for all existing architectures.
All modern arches (aarch64/ilp32 is the first candidate) will have
mmap64() only. The example is set/getrlimit() or renameat() drop
patches (b0da6d44).
                                
On GLIBC side, __OFF_T_MATCHES_OFF64_t will wire mmap() from
linux/generic/wordsize32/mmap.c to mmap64() from linux/mmap64.c. 

mmap64() will first try __NR_mmap64, and if not defined, or ENOSYS
is returned, __NR_mmap2 will be called. This is to let userspace that
supports both mmap2() and mmap64() have full 64-bit offset support, not
44-bit one.

For __NR_mmap2 case, I'd also add the check against offsets more than
2^44, and set errno to EOVERFLOW in that case.

Any thoughts?

Yury.