Re: [PATCH 1/2] mmap.2: clarify MAP_LOCKED semantic

[Eric B Munson]

On Wed, 13 May 2015, Eric B Munson wrote:

> On Wed, 13 May 2015, Michal Hocko wrote:
> 
> > From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxx>
> > 
> > MAP_LOCKED had a subtly different semantic from mmap(2)+mlock(2) since
> > it has been introduced.
> > mlock(2) fails if the memory range cannot get populated to guarantee
> > that no future major faults will happen on the range. mmap(MAP_LOCKED) on
> > the other hand silently succeeds even if the range was populated only
> > partially.
> > 
> > Fixing this subtle difference in the kernel is rather awkward because
> > the memory population happens after mm locks have been dropped and so
> > the cleanup before returning failure (munlock) could operate on something
> > else than the originally mapped area.
> > 
> > E.g. speculative userspace page fault handler catching SEGV and doing
> > mmap(fault_addr, MAP_FIXED|MAP_LOCKED) might discard portion of a racing
> > mmap and lead to lost data. Although it is not clear whether such a
> > usage would be valid, mmap page doesn't explicitly describe requirements
> > for threaded applications so we cannot exclude this possibility.
> > 
> > This patch makes the semantic of MAP_LOCKED explicit and suggest using
> > mmap + mlock as the only way to guarantee no later major page faults.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxx>
> 
> Does the problem still happend when MAP_POPULATE | MAP_LOCKED is used
> (AFAICT MAP_POPULATE will cause the mmap to fail if all the pages cannot
> be made present).
> 
> Either way this is a good catch.
> 
> Acked-by: Eric B Munson <emunson@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
Sorry for the noise, this should have been a

Reviewed-by: Eric B Munson <emunson@xxxxxxxxxx>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature