From: "Magnus Groß" <magnus.gross@rwth-aachen.de>
To: keescook@chromium.org
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, anthony.yznaga@oracle.com,
glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
matoro_bugzilla_kernel@matoro.tk,
matoro_mailinglist_kernel@matoro.tk, regressions@leemhuis.info,
regressions@lists.linux.dev, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: regression: Bug 215601 - gcc segv at startup on ia64
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2022 10:46:13 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Yhyn9cjDV8XfXLHm@fractal.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <202202260344.63C15C3356@keescook>
In-Reply-To: <a3edd529-c42d-3b09-135c-7e98a15b150f@leemhuis.info>
> When the kernel tries to map these with a combined allocation, it asks
> for a giant mmap of the file, but the file is, of course, not at all
> that large, and the mapping is rejected.
> So... I'm trying to think about how best to deal with this. If I or
> anyone else can't think of an elegant solution, I'll send a revert for
> the offending patch next week.
Shouldn't we just be able to patch total_mapping_size() again to instead
sum up all p_memsz fields, instead of comparing minimum and maximum
p_vaddr?
Runtime complexity would be the same as we are iterating through all
segments already anyway. And I would also argue that is the behaviour
that one wanted to see in that function anyway.
If you agree with this, I can post a patch, but I would need to know
what tree to base it on to avoid merge conflicts with the just merged
patch from Alexey.
--
Magnus
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Magnus Groß" <magnus.gross@rwth-aachen.de>
To: <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc: <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, <anthony.yznaga@oracle.com>,
<glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de>, <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
<matoro_bugzilla_kernel@matoro.tk>,
<matoro_mailinglist_kernel@matoro.tk>,
<regressions@leemhuis.info>, <regressions@lists.linux.dev>,
<viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: regression: Bug 215601 - gcc segv at startup on ia64
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2022 11:46:13 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Yhyn9cjDV8XfXLHm@fractal.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <202202260344.63C15C3356@keescook>
> When the kernel tries to map these with a combined allocation, it asks
> for a giant mmap of the file, but the file is, of course, not at all
> that large, and the mapping is rejected.
> So... I'm trying to think about how best to deal with this. If I or
> anyone else can't think of an elegant solution, I'll send a revert for
> the offending patch next week.
Shouldn't we just be able to patch total_mapping_size() again to instead
sum up all p_memsz fields, instead of comparing minimum and maximum
p_vaddr?
Runtime complexity would be the same as we are iterating through all
segments already anyway. And I would also argue that is the behaviour
that one wanted to see in that function anyway.
If you agree with this, I can post a patch, but I would need to know
what tree to base it on to avoid merge conflicts with the just merged
patch from Alexey.
--
Magnus
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-02-28 10:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-02-20 17:12 regression: Bug 215601 - gcc segv at startup on ia64 Thorsten Leemhuis
2022-02-20 17:12 ` Thorsten Leemhuis
2022-02-20 17:19 ` Thorsten Leemhuis
2022-02-20 17:19 ` Thorsten Leemhuis
2022-02-21 7:42 ` Kees Cook
2022-02-21 7:42 ` Kees Cook
2022-02-21 19:49 ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2022-02-21 19:49 ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2022-02-21 20:58 ` Kees Cook
2022-02-21 20:58 ` Kees Cook
2022-02-21 21:57 ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2022-02-21 21:57 ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2022-02-24 3:58 ` Kees Cook
2022-02-24 3:58 ` Kees Cook
2022-02-24 5:16 ` Kees Cook
2022-02-24 5:16 ` Kees Cook
2022-02-24 9:33 ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2022-02-24 9:33 ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2022-02-24 14:22 ` matoro
2022-02-24 14:22 ` matoro
2022-02-24 16:33 ` Kees Cook
2022-02-24 16:33 ` Kees Cook
2022-02-26 11:52 ` Kees Cook
2022-02-26 11:52 ` Kees Cook
2022-02-28 10:46 ` Magnus Groß [this message]
2022-02-28 10:46 ` Magnus Groß
2022-02-28 20:41 ` Kees Cook
2022-02-28 20:41 ` Kees Cook
2022-03-02 12:01 ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2022-03-02 12:01 ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2022-03-02 12:35 ` Thorsten Leemhuis
2022-03-02 12:35 ` Thorsten Leemhuis
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Yhyn9cjDV8XfXLHm@fractal.localdomain \
--to=magnus.gross@rwth-aachen.de \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=anthony.yznaga@oracle.com \
--cc=glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=matoro_bugzilla_kernel@matoro.tk \
--cc=matoro_mailinglist_kernel@matoro.tk \
--cc=regressions@leemhuis.info \
--cc=regressions@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.