From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ua0-f200.google.com (mail-ua0-f200.google.com [209.85.217.200]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FF226B0069 for ; Fri, 30 Dec 2016 21:08:48 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-ua0-f200.google.com with SMTP id s34so315622666uas.2 for ; Fri, 30 Dec 2016 18:08:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-vk0-x22d.google.com (mail-vk0-x22d.google.com. [2607:f8b0:400c:c05::22d]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id c4si14628883vkh.3.2016.12.30.18.08.47 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 30 Dec 2016 18:08:47 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-vk0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id p9so247582133vkd.3 for ; Fri, 30 Dec 2016 18:08:47 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <3a168403-26f7-ac8d-3086-848178be6005@redhat.com> References: <20161227015413.187403-1-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> <20161227015413.187403-30-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> <20161227022405.GA8780@node.shutemov.name> <3a168403-26f7-ac8d-3086-848178be6005@redhat.com> From: Andy Lutomirski Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2016 18:08:27 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCHv2 29/29] mm, x86: introduce RLIMIT_VADDR Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Carlos O'Donell Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" , "Kirill A. Shutemov" , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , X86 ML , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Arnd Bergmann , "H. Peter Anvin" , Andi Kleen , Dave Hansen , linux-arch , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Linux API On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 6:53 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote: > On 12/26/2016 09:24 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: >> On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 06:06:01PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >>> On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 5:54 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov >>> wrote: >>>> This patch introduces new rlimit resource to manage maximum virtual >>>> address available to userspace to map. >>>> >>>> On x86, 5-level paging enables 56-bit userspace virtual address space. >>>> Not all user space is ready to handle wide addresses. It's known that >>>> at least some JIT compilers use high bit in pointers to encode their >>>> information. It collides with valid pointers with 5-level paging and >>>> leads to crashes. >>>> >>>> The patch aims to address this compatibility issue. >>>> >>>> MM would use min(RLIMIT_VADDR, TASK_SIZE) as upper limit of virtual >>>> address available to map by userspace. >>>> >>>> The default hard limit will be RLIM_INFINITY, which basically means th= at >>>> TASK_SIZE limits available address space. >>>> >>>> The soft limit will also be RLIM_INFINITY everywhere, but the machine >>>> with 5-level paging enabled. In this case, soft limit would be >>>> (1UL << 47) - PAGE_SIZE. It=E2=80=99s current x86-64 TASK_SIZE_MAX wit= h 4-level >>>> paging which known to be safe >>>> >>>> New rlimit resource would follow usual semantics with regards to >>>> inheritance: preserved on fork(2) and exec(2). This has potential to >>>> break application if limits set too wide or too narrow, but this is no= t >>>> uncommon for other resources (consider RLIMIT_DATA or RLIMIT_AS). >>>> >>>> As with other resources you can set the limit lower than current usage= . >>>> It would affect only future virtual address space allocations. >>>> >>>> Use-cases for new rlimit: >>>> >>>> - Bumping the soft limit to RLIM_INFINITY, allows current process al= l >>>> its children to use addresses above 47-bits. >>>> >>>> - Bumping the soft limit to RLIM_INFINITY after fork(2), but before >>>> exec(2) allows the child to use addresses above 47-bits. >>>> >>>> - Lowering the hard limit to 47-bits would prevent current process a= ll >>>> its children to use addresses above 47-bits, unless a process has >>>> CAP_SYS_RESOURCES. >>>> >>>> - It=E2=80=99s also can be handy to lower hard or soft limit to arbi= trary >>>> address. User-mode emulation in QEMU may lower the limit to 32-bit >>>> to emulate 32-bit machine on 64-bit host. >>> >>> I tend to think that this should be a personality or an ELF flag, not >>> an rlimit. >> >> My plan was to implement ELF flag on top. Basically, ELF flag would mean >> that we bump soft limit to hard limit on exec. > > Could you clarify what you mean by an "ELF flag?" Some way to mark a binary as supporting a larger address space. I don't have a precise solution in mind, but an ELF note might be a good way to go here. --Andy -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org