From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753980AbdKMQ5Q (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Nov 2017 11:57:16 -0500 Received: from Galois.linutronix.de ([146.0.238.70]:34279 "EHLO Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753664AbdKMQ5O (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Nov 2017 11:57:14 -0500 Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 17:57:03 +0100 (CET) From: Thomas Gleixner To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" , Ingo Molnar , Linus Torvalds , x86@kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" , Andy Lutomirski , Cyrill Gorcunov , Nicholas Piggin , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/mm: Do not allow non-MAP_FIXED mapping across DEFAULT_MAP_WINDOW border In-Reply-To: <20171113164154.fp5fd2seozbmxcbs@node.shutemov.name> Message-ID: References: <20171107130539.52676-1-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> <20171113164154.fp5fd2seozbmxcbs@node.shutemov.name> User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 13 Nov 2017, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 04:43:26PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > On Tue, 7 Nov 2017, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > > > > > In case of 5-level paging, we don't put any mapping above 47-bit, unless > > > userspace explicitly asked for it. > > > > > > Userspace can ask for allocation from full address space by specifying > > > hint address above 47-bit. > > > > > > Nicholas noticed that current implementation violates this interface: > > > we can get vma partly in high addresses if we ask for a mapping at very > > > end of 47-bit address space. > > > > > > Let's make sure that, when consider hint address for non-MAP_FIXED > > > mapping, start and end of resulting vma are on the same side of 47-bit > > > border. > > > > What happens for mappings with MAP_FIXED which cross the border? > > It will succeed with 5-level paging. And why is this allowed? > It should be safe as with 4-level paging such request would fail and it's > reasonable to expect that userspace is not relying on the failure to > function properly. Huch? The first rule when looking at user space is that is broken or hostile. Reasonable and user space are mutually exclusive. Thanks, tglx