Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 28 Feb 2018 08:17:59 +0100
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To:     Ilya Smith <blackzert@gmail.com>
Cc:     tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com,
        x86@kernel.org, kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com,
        dsafonov@virtuozzo.com, hughd@google.com,
        gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, craigb@google.com, oleg@redhat.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Take mmap_min_addr into account while choosing
 unmapped address for x86-64.
Message-ID: <20180228071759.GN15357@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <20180226211257.63067-1-blackzert@gmail.com>
 <20180227085726.GC15357@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <B6A5E9B0-4986-4CD4-B01A-B6218D859579@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <B6A5E9B0-4986-4CD4-B01A-B6218D859579@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.3 (2018-01-21)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue 27-02-18 16:27:29, Ilya Smith wrote:
> > 
> > mmap_min_addr handling is a bit mess... As you say, we would return
> > EPERM rather than ENOMEM which can be confusing but depleting the
> > address space like that is quite unlikely on 64b unless I am missing.
> > It is good to be in sync here with the generic implementation though,
> > IMO.
> > 
> 
> If we take a look on mm/mmap.c:
> #ifndef HAVE_ARCH_UNMAPPED_AREA_TOPDOWN
> unsigned long
> arch_get_unmapped_area_topdown(
> …
> 	if (len > TASK_SIZE - mmap_min_addr)
> 		return -ENOMEM;
> …
> 	info.low_limit = max(PAGE_SIZE, mmap_min_addr);
> 
> And this one looks like a generic implementation.
> But for many other architectures like arch/parisc/kernel/sys_parisc.c 
> or arch/x86/kernel/sys_x86_64.c
> 
> 	info.low_limit = PAGE_SIZE;

Yeah, this is what I meant when saying that mmap_min_addr is a bit of a
mess. I am wondering whether the low_limit should be checked inside
vm_unmapped_area. We would still need some mmap_min_addr handling at
arch_get_unmapped_area_topdown layer which is still suboptimal but I do
not see an easy way around without reworking how the arch specific parts
are implemented currently.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs