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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180416211115.GU17484@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <CAG48ez2w+3FDh9LM3+P2EHowicjM2Xw6giR6uq=26JfWHYsTAQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180413160435.GA17484@dhcp22.suse.cz> <CAG48ez3-xtmAt2EpRFR8GNKKPcsDsyg7XdwQ=D5w3Ym6w4Krjw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAG48ez1PdzMs8hkatbzSLBWYucjTc75o8ovSmeC66+e9mLvSfA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180416100736.GG17484@dhcp22.suse.cz> <CAG48ez3DwRXMtiinUWKnan6hAppLYLdx-w+VzXG6ubioZUacQg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180416191805.GS17484@dhcp22.suse.cz> <CAG48ez1nf96nHj8a+aZy22RwqYTUZBGrsGFcz=ZhZBUWzaEZ9w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180416195726.GT17484@dhcp22.suse.cz> <CAG48ez1bV_zZP3Y2ioDndP+H8mLCcxOtU1vCbWe7Q8myEGfXQQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180416211115.GU17484@dhcp22.suse.cz>
From:   Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
Date:   Mon, 16 Apr 2018 23:12:48 +0200
Message-ID: <CAG48ez2fXcQS7sw_aCC6_wBKjYphOxFRN4rrRzSk2+-T_mFaxw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mmap.2: MAP_FIXED is okay if the address range has been reserved
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc:     "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>,
        John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>,
        linux-man <linux-man@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 11:11 PM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Mon 16-04-18 22:17:40, Jann Horn wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 9:57 PM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote:
>> > On Mon 16-04-18 21:30:09, Jann Horn wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 9:18 PM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote:
>> > [...]
>> >> > Yes, reasonably well written application will not have this problem.
>> >> > That, however, requires an external synchronization and that's why
>> >> > called it error prone and racy. I guess that was the main motivation for
>> >> > that part of the man page.
>> >>
>> >> What requires external synchronization? I still don't understand at
>> >> all what you're talking about.
>> >>
>> >> The following code:
>> >>
>> >> void *try_to_alloc_addr(void *hint, size_t len) {
>> >>   char *x = mmap(hint, len, ...);
>> >>   if (x == MAP_FAILED) return NULL;
>> >>   if (x == hint) return x;
>> >
>> > Any other thread can modify the address space at this moment.
>>
>> But not parts of the address space that were returned by this mmap() call.
> ?
>> > Just
>> > consider that another thread would does mmap(x, MAP_FIXED) (or any other
>> > address overlapping [x, x+len] range)
>>
>> If the other thread does that without previously having created a
>> mapping covering the area in question, that would be a bug in the
>> other thread.
>
> MAP_FIXED is sometimes used without preallocated address ranges.

Wow, really? Can you point to an example?

>> MAP_FIXED on an unmapped address is almost always a bug
>> (excluding single-threaded cases with no library code, and even then
>> it's quite weird) - for example, any malloc() call could also cause
>> libc to start using the memory range you're trying to map with
>> MAP_FIXED.
>
> Yeah and that's why we there is such a large paragraph in the man page
> ;)
>
>> > becaus it is seemingly safe as x
>> > != hint.
>>
>> I don't understand this part. Are you talking about a hypothetical
>> scenario in which a programmer attempts to segment the virtual memory
>> space into areas that are exclusively used by threads without creating
>> memory mappings for those areas?
>
> Yeah, that doesn't sound all that over-exaggerated, right? And yes,
> such a code would be subtle and most probably buggy. I am not trying to
> argue for those hypothetical cases. All I am saying is that MAP_FIXED is
> subtle.
>
> I _do_ agree that using it solely on the preallocated and _properly_
> managed address ranges is safe. I still maintain my position on error
> prone though. And besides that there are usecases which do not operate
> on preallocated address ranges so people really have to be careful.
>
> I do not really care what is the form. I find the current wording quite
> informative and showing examples of how things might be broken. I do
> agree with your remark that "MAP_FIXED on preallocated ranges is safe"
> should be added. But MAP_FIXED is dangerous API and should have few big
> fat warnings.
> --
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs