linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>
To: Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>
Cc: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
	linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Subject: Re: POWER: Unexpected fault when writing to brk-allocated memory
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 19:25:24 +1100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171106192524.12ea3187@roar.ozlabs.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <24b93038-76f7-33df-d02e-facb0ce61cd2@redhat.com>

On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 09:11:37 +0100
Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com> wrote:

> On 11/06/2017 07:47 AM, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> > "You get < 128TB unless explicitly requested."
> > 
> > Simple, reasonable, obvious rule. Avoids breaking apps that store
> > some bits in the top of pointers (provided that memory allocator
> > userspace libraries also do the right thing).  
> 
> So brk would simplify fail instead of crossing the 128 TiB threshold?

Yes, that was the intention and that's what x86 seems to do.

> 
> glibc malloc should cope with that and switch to malloc, but this code 
> path is obviously less well-tested than the regular way.

Switch to mmap() I guess you meant?

powerpc has a couple of bugs in corner cases, so those should be fixed
according to intended policy for stable kernels I think.

But I question the policy. Just seems like an ugly and ineffective wart.
Exactly for such cases as this -- behaviour would change from run to run
depending on your address space randomization for example! In case your
brk happens to land nicely on 128TB then the next one would succeed. If
not, then behaviour changes. And you didn't catch or prevent any bugs.

Thanks,
Nick

  reply	other threads:[~2017-11-06  8:25 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-11-03 17:05 POWER: Unexpected fault when writing to brk-allocated memory Florian Weimer
2017-11-05 12:18 ` Nicholas Piggin
2017-11-05 12:35   ` Florian Weimer
2017-11-05 12:54     ` Nicholas Piggin
2017-11-05 14:50   ` Florian Weimer
2017-11-06  6:18   ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2017-11-06  6:47     ` Nicholas Piggin
2017-11-06  8:11       ` Florian Weimer
2017-11-06  8:25         ` Nicholas Piggin [this message]
2017-11-06  8:30           ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2017-11-06  8:32             ` Florian Weimer
2017-11-06 10:20               ` Nicholas Piggin
2017-11-07  5:07               ` Nicholas Piggin
2017-11-07  8:15                 ` Florian Weimer
2017-11-07  9:24                   ` Nicholas Piggin
2017-11-07 11:16                   ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2017-11-07 11:15                 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2017-11-07 11:26                   ` Florian Weimer
2017-11-07 11:44                     ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2017-11-07 13:05                       ` Florian Weimer
2017-11-07 13:16                         ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2017-11-08  6:08                           ` Michael Ellerman
2017-11-08  6:18                             ` Florian Weimer
2017-11-07 11:56                   ` Nicholas Piggin
2017-11-07 12:28                     ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2017-11-07 13:33                       ` Nicholas Piggin
2017-11-07 13:45                         ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2017-11-07 14:01                           ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2017-11-09 17:15                             ` Nicholas Piggin
2017-11-09 19:44                               ` Matthew Wilcox
2017-11-10  1:26                                 ` Nicholas Piggin
2017-11-10 12:08                                 ` David Laight
2017-11-11 10:30                                   ` Nicholas Piggin
2017-11-08  4:56                           ` Michael Ellerman
2017-11-08  8:30                             ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2017-11-06  8:10     ` Florian Weimer

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=20171106192524.12ea3187@roar.ozlabs.ibm.com \
    --to=npiggin@gmail.com \
    --cc=aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=fweimer@redhat.com \
    --cc=kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).