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;
From:   Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc:     Joel Stanley <joel@jms.id.au>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
        Abdul Haleem <abdhalee@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@parisc-linux.org>,
        Helge Deller <deller@gmx.de>,
        Yoshinori Sato <ysato@users.sourceforge.jp>,
        Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Chris Zankel <chris@zankel.net>,
        Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@gmail.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org,
        linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org,
        sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org
Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 7
In-Reply-To: <20171113151641.yfqrecpcxllpn5mq@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <20171107162217.382cd754@canb.auug.org.au> <CACPK8Xfd4nqkf=Lk3n6+TNHAAi327r0dkUfGypZ3TpR0LqfS4Q@mail.gmail.com> <20171108142050.7w3yliulxjeco3b7@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20171110123054.5pnefm3mczsfv7bz@dhcp22.suse.cz> <CACPK8Xe5uUKEytkRiszdX511b_cYTD-z3X=ZsMcNJ-NOYnXfuQ@mail.gmail.com> <20171113092006.cjw2njjukt6limvb@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20171113094203.aofz2e7kueitk55y@dhcp22.suse.cz> <87lgjawgx1.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au> <20171113120057.555mvrs4fjq5tyng@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20171113151641.yfqrecpcxllpn5mq@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:   Tue, 14 Nov 2017 20:02:09 +1100
Message-ID: <87efp1w7vy.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> writes:

> On Mon 13-11-17 13:00:57, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [...]
>> Yes, I have mentioned that in the previous email but the amount of code
>> would be even larger. Basically every arch which reimplements
>> arch_get_unmapped_area would have to special case new MAP_FIXED flag to
>> do vma lookup.
>
> It turned out that this might be much more easier than I thought after
> all. It seems we can really handle that in the common code.

Ah nice. I should have read this before replying to your previous mail.

> This would mean that we are exposing a new functionality to the userspace though.
> Myabe this would be useful on its own though.

Yes I think it would. At least jemalloc seems like it could use it:

  https://github.com/jemalloc/jemalloc/blob/9f455e2786685b443201c33119765c8093461174/src/pages.c#L65

And I have memories of some JIT code I read once which did a loop of
mmap()s or something to try and get allocations below 4GB or some other
limit - but I can't remember now what it was.

> Just a quick draft (not
> even compile tested) whether this makes sense in general. I would be
> worried about unexpected behavior when somebody set other bit without a
> good reason and we might fail with ENOMEM for such a call now.
>
> Elf loader would then use MAP_FIXED_SAFE rather than MAP_FIXED.
> ---
> diff --git a/arch/alpha/include/uapi/asm/mman.h b/arch/alpha/include/uapi/asm/mman.h
> index 3b26cc62dadb..d021c21f9b01 100644
> --- a/arch/alpha/include/uapi/asm/mman.h
> +++ b/arch/alpha/include/uapi/asm/mman.h
> @@ -31,6 +31,9 @@
>  #define MAP_STACK	0x80000		/* give out an address that is best suited for process/thread stacks */
>  #define MAP_HUGETLB	0x100000	/* create a huge page mapping */
>  
> +#define MAP_KEEP_MAPPING 0x2000000
> +#define MAP_FIXED_SAFE	MAP_FIXED|MAP_KEEP_MAPPING /* enforce MAP_FIXED without clobbering an existing mapping */


So bike-shedding a bit, but I think "SAFE" is too vague a name.

Perhaps MAP_NO_CLOBBER - which has the single semantic of "do not
clobber any existing mappings".

It would be a flag on its own, so you could pass it with or without
MAP_FIXED, but it would only change the behaviour when MAP_FIXED is
specified also.

cheers

From 1584031156652656318@xxx Tue Nov 14 08:57:10 +0000 2017
X-GM-THRID: 1583423641769727671
X-Gmail-Labels: Inbox,Category Forums,HistoricalUnread