[lkml]   [2018]   [Mar]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH v2 0/2] Randomization of address chosen by mmap.
On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 03:16:21PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> > Huh, I thought libc was aware of this. Also, I'd expect a libc-based
> > implementation to restrict itself to, eg, only loading libraries in
> > the bottom 1GB to avoid applications who want to map huge things from
> > running out of unfragmented address space.
> That seems like a rather arbitrary expectation and I'm not sure why
> you'd expect it to result in less fragmentation rather than more. For
> example if it started from 1GB and worked down, you'd immediately
> reduce the contiguous free space from ~3GB to ~2GB, and if it started
> from the bottom and worked up, brk would immediately become
> unavailable, increasing mmap pressure elsewhere.

By *not* limiting yourself to the bottom 1GB, you'll almost immediately
fragment the address space even worse. Just looking at 'ls' as a
hopefully-good example of a typical app, it maps: (0x00007ffef5eef000) => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/ (0x00007fb3657f5000) => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/ (0x00007fb36543b000) => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/ (0x00007fb3651c9000) => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/ (0x00007fb364fc5000)
/lib64/ (0x00007fb365c3f000) => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/ (0x00007fb364da7000)

The VDSO wouldn't move, but look at the distribution of mapping 6 things
into a 3GB address space in random locations. What are the odds you have
a contiguous 1GB chunk of address space? If you restrict yourself to the
bottom 1GB before running out of room and falling back to a sequential
allocation, you'll prevent a lot of fragmentation.

 \ /
  Last update: 2018-03-23 20:31    [W:0.113 / U:0.360 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site