From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:e::133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 407DCh3qvkzF1WY for ; Sat, 24 Mar 2018 06:30:40 +1100 (AEDT) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 12:29:52 -0700 From: Matthew Wilcox To: Rich Felker Cc: Ilya Smith , rth@twiddle.net, ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru, mattst88@gmail.com, vgupta@synopsys.com, linux@armlinux.org.uk, tony.luck@intel.com, fenghua.yu@intel.com, jhogan@kernel.org, ralf@linux-mips.org, jejb@parisc-linux.org, deller@gmx.de, benh@kernel.crashing.org, paulus@samba.org, mpe@ellerman.id.au, schwidefsky@de.ibm.com, heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com, ysato@users.sourceforge.jp, davem@davemloft.net, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, x86@kernel.org, nyc@holomorphy.com, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, arnd@arndb.de, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, deepa.kernel@gmail.com, mhocko@suse.com, hughd@google.com, kstewart@linuxfoundation.org, pombredanne@nexb.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, steve.capper@arm.com, punit.agrawal@arm.com, paul.burton@mips.com, aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com, npiggin@gmail.com, keescook@chromium.org, bhsharma@redhat.com, riel@redhat.com, nitin.m.gupta@oracle.com, kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com, dan.j.williams@intel.com, jack@suse.cz, ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com, jglisse@redhat.com, aarcange@redhat.com, oleg@redhat.com, linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-metag@vger.kernel.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/2] Randomization of address chosen by mmap. Message-ID: <20180323192952.GB23763@bombadil.infradead.org> References: <1521736598-12812-1-git-send-email-blackzert@gmail.com> <20180323124806.GA5624@bombadil.infradead.org> <20180323180024.GB1436@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20180323190618.GA23763@bombadil.infradead.org> <20180323191621.GC1436@brightrain.aerifal.cx> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20180323191621.GC1436@brightrain.aerifal.cx> List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 03:16:21PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote: > > Huh, I thought libc was aware of this. Also, I'd expect a libc-based > > implementation to restrict itself to, eg, only loading libraries in > > the bottom 1GB to avoid applications who want to map huge things from > > running out of unfragmented address space. > > That seems like a rather arbitrary expectation and I'm not sure why > you'd expect it to result in less fragmentation rather than more. For > example if it started from 1GB and worked down, you'd immediately > reduce the contiguous free space from ~3GB to ~2GB, and if it started > from the bottom and worked up, brk would immediately become > unavailable, increasing mmap pressure elsewhere. By *not* limiting yourself to the bottom 1GB, you'll almost immediately fragment the address space even worse. Just looking at 'ls' as a hopefully-good example of a typical app, it maps: linux-vdso.so.1 (0x00007ffef5eef000) libselinux.so.1 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libselinux.so.1 (0x00007fb3657f5000) libc.so.6 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6 (0x00007fb36543b000) libpcre.so.3 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libpcre.so.3 (0x00007fb3651c9000) libdl.so.2 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libdl.so.2 (0x00007fb364fc5000) /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x00007fb365c3f000) libpthread.so.0 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libpthread.so.0 (0x00007fb364da7000) The VDSO wouldn't move, but look at the distribution of mapping 6 things into a 3GB address space in random locations. What are the odds you have a contiguous 1GB chunk of address space? If you restrict yourself to the bottom 1GB before running out of room and falling back to a sequential allocation, you'll prevent a lot of fragmentation.