lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Sep]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] mm, proc: Fix region lost in /proc/self/smaps
From
Date
On 09/12/2016 05:54 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> > In order to fix this bug, we make 'file->version' indicate the end address
>> > of current VMA
> Doesn't this open doors to another weird cases. Say B would be partially
> unmapped (tail of the VMA would get unmapped and reused for a new VMA.

In the end, this interface isn't about VMAs. It's about addresses, and
we need to make sure that the _addresses_ coming out of it are sane. In
the case that a VMA was partially unmapped, it doesn't make sense to
show the "new" VMA because we already had some output covering the
address of the "new" VMA from the old one.

> I am not sure we provide any guarantee when there are more read
> syscalls. Hmm, even with a single read() we can get inconsistent results
> from different threads without any user space synchronization.

Yeah, very true. But, I think we _can_ at least provide the following
guarantees (among others):
1. addresses don't go backwards
2. If there is something at a given vaddr during the entirety of the
life of the smaps walk, we will produce some output for it.

> So in other words isn't this fixing a bug by introducing a slightly
> different one while we are not really guaranteeing anything strong here?

Well, the (original) bug here _is_ pretty crummy. It's not printing a
VMA, and that VMA was never touched. It's just collateral damage from
the previous guy who got destroyed.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-09-17 09:59    [W:0.199 / U:0.104 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site