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 09/13/2016 03:10 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 12-09-16 08:01:06, Dave Hansen wrote:
>> 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.
>
> OK, that is a fair point and it speaks for caching the vm_end rather
> than vm_start+skip.
>
>>> 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.
>
> I guess we also want
> 3. no overlaps with previously printed values (assuming two subsequent
> reads without seek).
>
> the patch tries to achieve the last part as well AFAICS but I guess this
> is incomplete because at least /proc/<pid>/smaps will report counters
> for the full vma range while the header (aka show_map_vma) will report
> shorter (non-overlapping) range. I haven't checked other files which use
> m_{start,next}

You are right. Will fix both /proc/PID/smaps and /proc/PID/maps in
the next version.

>
> Considering how this all can be tricky and how partial reads can be
> confusing and even misleading I am really wondering whether we
> should simply document that only full reads will provide a sensible
> results.

Make sense. Will document the guarantee in
Documentation/filesystems/proc.txt

Thank you, Dave and Michal, for figuring out the right direction. :)


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-09-17 09:59    [W:0.088 / U:0.040 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site