[PATCH 1/1] expand_downwards: don't require the gap if !vm_prev

[Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>]

expand_stack(vma) fails if address < stack_guard_gap even if there is no
vma->vm_prev. I don't think this makes sense, and we didn't do this before
the recent commit 1be7107fbe18 ("mm: larger stack guard gap, between vmas").
We do not need a gap in this case, any address is fine as long as
security_mmap_addr() doesn't object.

This also simplifies the code, we know that address >= prev->vm_end and
thus underflow is not possible.

Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
---
 mm/mmap.c | 10 +++-------
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mm/mmap.c b/mm/mmap.c
index 8e07976..5a8bd97 100644
--- a/mm/mmap.c
+++ b/mm/mmap.c
@@ -2310,7 +2310,6 @@ int expand_downwards(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
 {
 	struct mm_struct *mm = vma->vm_mm;
 	struct vm_area_struct *prev;
-	unsigned long gap_addr;
 	int error;
 
 	address &= PAGE_MASK;
@@ -2319,14 +2318,11 @@ int expand_downwards(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
 		return error;
 
 	/* Enforce stack_guard_gap */
-	gap_addr = address - stack_guard_gap;
-	if (gap_addr > address)
-		return -ENOMEM;
 	prev = vma->vm_prev;
-	if (prev && prev->vm_end > gap_addr) {
-		if (!(prev->vm_flags & VM_GROWSDOWN))
+	/* Check that both stack segments have the same anon_vma? */
+	if (prev && !(prev->vm_flags & VM_GROWSDOWN)) {
+		if (address - prev->vm_end < stack_guard_gap)
 			return -ENOMEM;
-		/* Check that both stack segments have the same anon_vma? */
 	}
 
 	/* We must make sure the anon_vma is allocated. */
-- 
2.5.0