Re: POWER: Unexpected fault when writing to brk-allocated memory

[Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>]

On 11/06/2017 09:30 AM, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> On 11/06/2017 01:55 PM, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
>> 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?

Yes, sorry.

>> 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.
> 
> Why ? It should not change between run to run. We limit the free
> area search range based on hint address. So we should get consistent 
> results across run. even if we changed the context.addr_limit.

The size of the gap to the 128 TiB limit varies between runs because of 
ASLR.  So some runs would use brk alone, others would use brk + malloc. 
That's not really desirable IMHO.

Thanks,
Florian