Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <07fe91e7-104a-32d0-e59b-c1d2d459fdbe@yandex.ru>
Date:   Mon, 3 Apr 2023 18:31:52 +0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.7.1
Subject: Re: MREMAP_FIXED unmaps dest on error
Content-Language: en-US
To:     David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc:     linux-mm@kvack.org,
        =?UTF-8?Q?Jakub_Mat=c4=9bna?= <matenajakub@gmail.com>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@infradead.org>
References: <18c36a78-4082-fab6-c7c9-69a249516803@yandex.ru>
 <cba955a3-e41e-adce-954a-9a55d6d97065@redhat.com>
From:   stsp <stsp2@yandex.ru>
In-Reply-To: <cba955a3-e41e-adce-954a-9a55d6d97065@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

03.04.2023 16:58, David Hildenbrand пишет:
> On 30.03.23 17:48, stsp wrote:
>> Hello.
>>
>> The attached test-case demonstrates a
>> bug in mremap(). If MREMAP_FIXED is used
>> over an existing mapping and mremap() fails,
>> destination area gets unmapped.
>> AFAIK the failed syscall should have no
>> observable effects.
>
> I remember that holds for various mapping-related syscalls: if 
> something goes wrong, the end result is not guaranteed to be what we 
> had before the syscall.
>
> For example, if you use mmap(MAP_FIXED) to replace part of an exiting 
> mapping, we first munmap what's there and then try to mmap the new 
> mapping. If something goes wrong while doing that, we cannot simple 
> undo what we already did.
>
> Long story short: the semantics of these syscalls has never been to 
> leave the system in the state as it was before in case anything goes 
> wrong.
>
>
> As another example, if you do an mprotect() that covers multiple VMAS, 
> and there is an issue with the last VMA, all but the last VMA will 
> have their permissions changed.
>
Thanks for info.
Is this documented in a man page?
I wonder how do you deal with mmap() and
mprotect() on such occasions. mremap()
is an extension, but mmap() and mprotect()
are from posix, so is it a compliant impl?

Also my example shows another bug
that the VMAs are not merged after I
restore the protection of one of them,
allowing them to merge.