Re: [PATCH v2] mmap.2: MAP_FIXED updated documentation

[Michal Hocko]

On Mon 04-12-17 18:52:27, John Hubbard wrote:
> On 12/04/2017 03:31 AM, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 03, 2017 at 06:14:11PM -0800, john.hubbard@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >> From: John Hubbard <jhubbard@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> [...]
> >> +.IP
> >> +Given the above limitations, one of the very few ways to use this option
> >> +safely is: mmap() a region, without specifying MAP_FIXED. Then, within that
> >> +region, call mmap(MAP_FIXED) to suballocate regions. This avoids both the
> >> +portability problem (because the first mmap call lets the kernel pick the
> >> +address), and the address space corruption problem (because the region being
> >> +overwritten is already owned by the calling thread).
> > 
> > Maybe "address space corruption problem caused by implicit calls to mmap"?
> > The region allocated with the first mmap is not exactly owned by the
> > thread and a multi-thread application can still corrupt its memory if
> > different threads use mmap(MAP_FIXED) for overlapping regions.
> > 
> > My 2 cents.
> > 
> 
> Hi Mike,
> 
> Yes, thanks for picking through this, and I agree that the above is misleading.
> It should definitely not use the word "owned" at all. Re-doing the whole 
> paragraph in order to make it all fit together nicely, I get this:
> 
> "Given the above limitations, one of the very few ways to use this option
> safely is: mmap() an enclosing region, without specifying MAP_FIXED.
> Then, within that region, call mmap(MAP_FIXED) to suballocate regions
> within the enclosing region. This avoids both the portability problem 
> (because the first mmap call lets the kernel pick the address), and the 
> address space corruption problem (because implicit calls to mmap will 
> not affect the already-mapped enclosing region)."
> 
> ...how's that sound to you? I'll post a v3 soon with this.

It sounds to me you are trying to tell way to much while actually being
a bit misleading. Even sub-range MAP_FIXED is not multi-thread safe.

Really the more corner cases you will try to cover the worse the end
result will end up. I would just try to be simple here and mention the
address space corruption issues you've had earlier and be done with it.
Maybe add a note that some architectures might need a special alignement
and fail if it is not the case but nothing really specific.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs