Thread (6 messages) flat view 6 messages, 5 authors, 2019-03-01

Re: [PATCH] mm,mremap: Bail out earlier in mremap_to under map pressure

From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: 2019-02-26 22:04:33
Also in: linux-mm, lkml

On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 10:13:14 +0100 Oscar Salvador [off-list ref] wrote:
When using mremap() syscall in addition to MREMAP_FIXED flag,
mremap() calls mremap_to() which does the following:

1) unmaps the destination region where we are going to move the map
2) If the new region is going to be smaller, we unmap the last part
   of the old region

Then, we will eventually call move_vma() to do the actual move.

move_vma() checks whether we are at least 4 maps below max_map_count
before going further, otherwise it bails out with -ENOMEM.
The problem is that we might have already unmapped the vma's in steps
1) and 2), so it is not possible for userspace to figure out the state
of the vma's after it gets -ENOMEM, and it gets tricky for userspace
to clean up properly on error path.

While it is true that we can return -ENOMEM for more reasons
(e.g: see may_expand_vm() or move_page_tables()), I think that we can
avoid this scenario in concret if we check early in mremap_to() if the
operation has high chances to succeed map-wise.

Should not be that the case, we can bail out before we even try to unmap
anything, so we make sure the vma's are left untouched in case we are likely
to be short of maps.

The thumb-rule now is to rely on the worst-scenario case we can have.
That is when both vma's (old region and new region) are going to be split
in 3, so we get two more maps to the ones we already hold (one per each).
If current map count + 2 maps still leads us to 4 maps below the threshold,
we are going to pass the check in move_vma().

Of course, this is not free, as it might generate false positives when it is
true that we are tight map-wise, but the unmap operation can release several
vma's leading us to a good state.

Another approach was also investigated [1], but it may be too much hassle
for what it brings.
How is this going to affect existing userspace which is aware of the
current behaviour?

And how does it affect your existing cleanup code, come to that?  Does
it work as well or better after this change?
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help