Re: How should we handle variable address space sizes (Re: [RFC 3/4] x86/mm: define TASK_SIZE as current->mm->task_size)
On January 2, 2017 8:52:41 AM PST, Andy Lutomirskiwrote: >On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 1:49 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov > wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 06:11:05PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 7:56 AM, Dmitry Safonov > wrote: >>> > Keep task's virtual address space size as mm_struct field which >>> > exists for a long time - it's initialized in setup_new_exec() >>> > depending on the new task's personality. >>> > This way TASK_SIZE will always be the same as >current->mm->task_size. >>> > Previously, there could be an issue about different values of >>> > TASK_SIZE and current->mm->task_size: e.g, a 32-bit process can >unset >>> > ADDR_LIMIT_3GB personality (with personality syscall) and >>> > so TASK_SIZE will be 4Gb, which is larger than mm->task_size = >3Gb. >>> > As TASK_SIZE *and* current->mm->task_size are used both in code >>> > frequently, this difference creates a subtle situations, for >example: >>> > one can mmap addresses > 3Gb, but they will be hidden in >>> > /proc/pid/pagemap as it checks mm->task_size. >>> > I've moved initialization of mm->task_size earlier in >setup_new_exec() >>> > as arch_pick_mmap_layout() initializes mmap_legacy_base with >>> > TASK_UNMAPPED_BASE, which depends on TASK_SIZE. >>> >>> I don't like this patch so much because I think that we should >figure >>> out how this will all work in the long run first. I've added some >>> more people to the thread because other arches have similar issues >and >>> because x86 is about to get considerably more complicated (choices >>> include 3GB, 4GB, 47-bit, and 56-bit (the latter IIRC)). >>> >>> Here are a few of my thoughts on the matter. This isn't all that >well >>> thought out: >>> >>> The address space limit, especially if CRIU is in play, isn't really >a >>> hard limit. For example, you could allocate high memory then lower >>> the limit. Similarly, I see no reason that an x32 program should be >>> forbidden from mapping some high addresses or, similarly, that an >i386 >>> program can't (if it really wanted to) do a 64-bit mmap() and get a >>> high address. >>> >>> On that note, can we just *delete* the task_size check from pagemap? >>> It's been there since the very beginning: >>> >>> commit 85863e475e59afb027b0113290e3796ee6020b7d >>> Author: Matt Mackall >>> Date: Mon Feb 4 22:29:04 2008 -0800 >>> >>> maps4: add /proc/pid/pagemap interface >>> >>> and there's no explanation for why it's needed. >>> >>> So maybe we should have a *number* (not a bit) that indicates the >>> maximum address that mmap() will return unless an override is in >use. >>> Since common practice seems to be to stick this in the personality >>> field, we may need some fancy encoding. Executing a setuid binary >>> needs to reset to the default, and personality handles that. >> >> If we want to be able to specify arbitrary address as maximum, a >fancy >> encoding would need to claim 51 bits (63 VA - 12 in-page address) on >x86 >> from the persona flag. >> To me, it's stretching personality interface too far. >> >> Maybe it's easier to reset the rlimit for suid binaries? > >I guess I don't see why rlimit makes any sense, though. It's not a >resource utilization control, hard vs soft limits make very little >sense, requiring capabilities to exceed the hard limit doesn't help >anything, and it's only useful to preserve it across execve() to work >around bugs. > >So if it's going to be a number, let's just make it be a new number >with a new API to control it. > >--Andy It's an API that already exists, that's the plus. Hard and soft limits *do* make sense IMO. -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Re: How should we handle variable address space sizes (Re: [RFC 3/4] x86/mm: define TASK_SIZE as current->mm->task_size)
On January 2, 2017 8:52:41 AM PST, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 1:49 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov > wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 06:11:05PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 7:56 AM, Dmitry Safonov > wrote: >>> > Keep task's virtual address space size as mm_struct field which >>> > exists for a long time - it's initialized in setup_new_exec() >>> > depending on the new task's personality. >>> > This way TASK_SIZE will always be the same as >current->mm->task_size. >>> > Previously, there could be an issue about different values of >>> > TASK_SIZE and current->mm->task_size: e.g, a 32-bit process can >unset >>> > ADDR_LIMIT_3GB personality (with personality syscall) and >>> > so TASK_SIZE will be 4Gb, which is larger than mm->task_size = >3Gb. >>> > As TASK_SIZE *and* current->mm->task_size are used both in code >>> > frequently, this difference creates a subtle situations, for >example: >>> > one can mmap addresses > 3Gb, but they will be hidden in >>> > /proc/pid/pagemap as it checks mm->task_size. >>> > I've moved initialization of mm->task_size earlier in >setup_new_exec() >>> > as arch_pick_mmap_layout() initializes mmap_legacy_base with >>> > TASK_UNMAPPED_BASE, which depends on TASK_SIZE. >>> >>> I don't like this patch so much because I think that we should >figure >>> out how this will all work in the long run first. I've added some >>> more people to the thread because other arches have similar issues >and >>> because x86 is about to get considerably more complicated (choices >>> include 3GB, 4GB, 47-bit, and 56-bit (the latter IIRC)). >>> >>> Here are a few of my thoughts on the matter. This isn't all that >well >>> thought out: >>> >>> The address space limit, especially if CRIU is in play, isn't really >a >>> hard limit. For example, you could allocate high memory then lower >>> the limit. Similarly, I see no reason that an x32 program should be >>> forbidden from mapping some high addresses or, similarly, that an >i386 >>> program can't (if it really wanted to) do a 64-bit mmap() and get a >>> high address. >>> >>> On that note, can we just *delete* the task_size check from pagemap? >>> It's been there since the very beginning: >>> >>> commit 85863e475e59afb027b0113290e3796ee6020b7d >>> Author: Matt Mackall >>> Date: Mon Feb 4 22:29:04 2008 -0800 >>> >>> maps4: add /proc/pid/pagemap interface >>> >>> and there's no explanation for why it's needed. >>> >>> So maybe we should have a *number* (not a bit) that indicates the >>> maximum address that mmap() will return unless an override is in >use. >>> Since common practice seems to be to stick this in the personality >>> field, we may need some fancy encoding. Executing a setuid binary >>> needs to reset to the default, and personality handles that. >> >> If we want to be able to specify arbitrary address as maximum, a >fancy >> encoding would need to claim 51 bits (63 VA - 12 in-page address) on >x86 >> from the persona flag. >> To me, it's stretching personality interface too far. >> >> Maybe it's easier to reset the rlimit for suid binaries? > >I guess I don't see why rlimit makes any sense, though. It's not a >resource utilization control, hard vs soft limits make very little >sense, requiring capabilities to exceed the hard limit doesn't help >anything, and it's only useful to preserve it across execve() to work >around bugs. > >So if it's going to be a number, let's just make it be a new number >with a new API to control it. > >--Andy It's an API that already exists, that's the plus. Hard and soft limits *do* make sense IMO. -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Re: How should we handle variable address space sizes (Re: [RFC 3/4] x86/mm: define TASK_SIZE as current->mm->task_size)
On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 1:49 AM, Kirill A. Shutemovwrote: > On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 06:11:05PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 7:56 AM, Dmitry Safonov >> wrote: >> > Keep task's virtual address space size as mm_struct field which >> > exists for a long time - it's initialized in setup_new_exec() >> > depending on the new task's personality. >> > This way TASK_SIZE will always be the same as current->mm->task_size. >> > Previously, there could be an issue about different values of >> > TASK_SIZE and current->mm->task_size: e.g, a 32-bit process can unset >> > ADDR_LIMIT_3GB personality (with personality syscall) and >> > so TASK_SIZE will be 4Gb, which is larger than mm->task_size = 3Gb. >> > As TASK_SIZE *and* current->mm->task_size are used both in code >> > frequently, this difference creates a subtle situations, for example: >> > one can mmap addresses > 3Gb, but they will be hidden in >> > /proc/pid/pagemap as it checks mm->task_size. >> > I've moved initialization of mm->task_size earlier in setup_new_exec() >> > as arch_pick_mmap_layout() initializes mmap_legacy_base with >> > TASK_UNMAPPED_BASE, which depends on TASK_SIZE. >> >> I don't like this patch so much because I think that we should figure >> out how this will all work in the long run first. I've added some >> more people to the thread because other arches have similar issues and >> because x86 is about to get considerably more complicated (choices >> include 3GB, 4GB, 47-bit, and 56-bit (the latter IIRC)). >> >> Here are a few of my thoughts on the matter. This isn't all that well >> thought out: >> >> The address space limit, especially if CRIU is in play, isn't really a >> hard limit. For example, you could allocate high memory then lower >> the limit. Similarly, I see no reason that an x32 program should be >> forbidden from mapping some high addresses or, similarly, that an i386 >> program can't (if it really wanted to) do a 64-bit mmap() and get a >> high address. >> >> On that note, can we just *delete* the task_size check from pagemap? >> It's been there since the very beginning: >> >> commit 85863e475e59afb027b0113290e3796ee6020b7d >> Author: Matt Mackall >> Date: Mon Feb 4 22:29:04 2008 -0800 >> >> maps4: add /proc/pid/pagemap interface >> >> and there's no explanation for why it's needed. >> >> So maybe we should have a *number* (not a bit) that indicates the >> maximum address that mmap() will return unless an override is in use. >> Since common practice seems to be to stick this in the personality >> field, we may need some fancy encoding. Executing a setuid binary >> needs to reset to the default, and personality handles that. > > If we want to be able to specify arbitrary address as maximum, a fancy > encoding would need to claim 51 bits (63 VA - 12 in-page address) on x86 > from the persona flag. > To me, it's stretching personality interface too far. > > Maybe it's easier to reset the rlimit for suid binaries? I guess I don't see why rlimit makes any sense, though. It's not a resource utilization control, hard vs soft limits make very little sense, requiring capabilities to exceed the hard limit doesn't help anything, and it's only useful to preserve it across execve() to work around bugs. So if it's going to be a number, let's just make it be a new number with a new API to control it. --Andy
Re: How should we handle variable address space sizes (Re: [RFC 3/4] x86/mm: define TASK_SIZE as current->mm->task_size)
On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 1:49 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 06:11:05PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 7:56 AM, Dmitry Safonov >> wrote: >> > Keep task's virtual address space size as mm_struct field which >> > exists for a long time - it's initialized in setup_new_exec() >> > depending on the new task's personality. >> > This way TASK_SIZE will always be the same as current->mm->task_size. >> > Previously, there could be an issue about different values of >> > TASK_SIZE and current->mm->task_size: e.g, a 32-bit process can unset >> > ADDR_LIMIT_3GB personality (with personality syscall) and >> > so TASK_SIZE will be 4Gb, which is larger than mm->task_size = 3Gb. >> > As TASK_SIZE *and* current->mm->task_size are used both in code >> > frequently, this difference creates a subtle situations, for example: >> > one can mmap addresses > 3Gb, but they will be hidden in >> > /proc/pid/pagemap as it checks mm->task_size. >> > I've moved initialization of mm->task_size earlier in setup_new_exec() >> > as arch_pick_mmap_layout() initializes mmap_legacy_base with >> > TASK_UNMAPPED_BASE, which depends on TASK_SIZE. >> >> I don't like this patch so much because I think that we should figure >> out how this will all work in the long run first. I've added some >> more people to the thread because other arches have similar issues and >> because x86 is about to get considerably more complicated (choices >> include 3GB, 4GB, 47-bit, and 56-bit (the latter IIRC)). >> >> Here are a few of my thoughts on the matter. This isn't all that well >> thought out: >> >> The address space limit, especially if CRIU is in play, isn't really a >> hard limit. For example, you could allocate high memory then lower >> the limit. Similarly, I see no reason that an x32 program should be >> forbidden from mapping some high addresses or, similarly, that an i386 >> program can't (if it really wanted to) do a 64-bit mmap() and get a >> high address. >> >> On that note, can we just *delete* the task_size check from pagemap? >> It's been there since the very beginning: >> >> commit 85863e475e59afb027b0113290e3796ee6020b7d >> Author: Matt Mackall >> Date: Mon Feb 4 22:29:04 2008 -0800 >> >> maps4: add /proc/pid/pagemap interface >> >> and there's no explanation for why it's needed. >> >> So maybe we should have a *number* (not a bit) that indicates the >> maximum address that mmap() will return unless an override is in use. >> Since common practice seems to be to stick this in the personality >> field, we may need some fancy encoding. Executing a setuid binary >> needs to reset to the default, and personality handles that. > > If we want to be able to specify arbitrary address as maximum, a fancy > encoding would need to claim 51 bits (63 VA - 12 in-page address) on x86 > from the persona flag. > To me, it's stretching personality interface too far. > > Maybe it's easier to reset the rlimit for suid binaries? I guess I don't see why rlimit makes any sense, though. It's not a resource utilization control, hard vs soft limits make very little sense, requiring capabilities to exceed the hard limit doesn't help anything, and it's only useful to preserve it across execve() to work around bugs. So if it's going to be a number, let's just make it be a new number with a new API to control it. --Andy
Re: How should we handle variable address space sizes (Re: [RFC 3/4] x86/mm: define TASK_SIZE as current->mm->task_size)
On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 06:11:05PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 7:56 AM, Dmitry Safonov> wrote: > > Keep task's virtual address space size as mm_struct field which > > exists for a long time - it's initialized in setup_new_exec() > > depending on the new task's personality. > > This way TASK_SIZE will always be the same as current->mm->task_size. > > Previously, there could be an issue about different values of > > TASK_SIZE and current->mm->task_size: e.g, a 32-bit process can unset > > ADDR_LIMIT_3GB personality (with personality syscall) and > > so TASK_SIZE will be 4Gb, which is larger than mm->task_size = 3Gb. > > As TASK_SIZE *and* current->mm->task_size are used both in code > > frequently, this difference creates a subtle situations, for example: > > one can mmap addresses > 3Gb, but they will be hidden in > > /proc/pid/pagemap as it checks mm->task_size. > > I've moved initialization of mm->task_size earlier in setup_new_exec() > > as arch_pick_mmap_layout() initializes mmap_legacy_base with > > TASK_UNMAPPED_BASE, which depends on TASK_SIZE. > > I don't like this patch so much because I think that we should figure > out how this will all work in the long run first. I've added some > more people to the thread because other arches have similar issues and > because x86 is about to get considerably more complicated (choices > include 3GB, 4GB, 47-bit, and 56-bit (the latter IIRC)). > > Here are a few of my thoughts on the matter. This isn't all that well > thought out: > > The address space limit, especially if CRIU is in play, isn't really a > hard limit. For example, you could allocate high memory then lower > the limit. Similarly, I see no reason that an x32 program should be > forbidden from mapping some high addresses or, similarly, that an i386 > program can't (if it really wanted to) do a 64-bit mmap() and get a > high address. > > On that note, can we just *delete* the task_size check from pagemap? > It's been there since the very beginning: > > commit 85863e475e59afb027b0113290e3796ee6020b7d > Author: Matt Mackall > Date: Mon Feb 4 22:29:04 2008 -0800 > > maps4: add /proc/pid/pagemap interface > > and there's no explanation for why it's needed. > > So maybe we should have a *number* (not a bit) that indicates the > maximum address that mmap() will return unless an override is in use. > Since common practice seems to be to stick this in the personality > field, we may need some fancy encoding. Executing a setuid binary > needs to reset to the default, and personality handles that. If we want to be able to specify arbitrary address as maximum, a fancy encoding would need to claim 51 bits (63 VA - 12 in-page address) on x86 from the persona flag. To me, it's stretching personality interface too far. Maybe it's easier to reset the rlimit for suid binaries? -- Kirill A. Shutemov
Re: How should we handle variable address space sizes (Re: [RFC 3/4] x86/mm: define TASK_SIZE as current->mm->task_size)
On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 06:11:05PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 7:56 AM, Dmitry Safonov > wrote: > > Keep task's virtual address space size as mm_struct field which > > exists for a long time - it's initialized in setup_new_exec() > > depending on the new task's personality. > > This way TASK_SIZE will always be the same as current->mm->task_size. > > Previously, there could be an issue about different values of > > TASK_SIZE and current->mm->task_size: e.g, a 32-bit process can unset > > ADDR_LIMIT_3GB personality (with personality syscall) and > > so TASK_SIZE will be 4Gb, which is larger than mm->task_size = 3Gb. > > As TASK_SIZE *and* current->mm->task_size are used both in code > > frequently, this difference creates a subtle situations, for example: > > one can mmap addresses > 3Gb, but they will be hidden in > > /proc/pid/pagemap as it checks mm->task_size. > > I've moved initialization of mm->task_size earlier in setup_new_exec() > > as arch_pick_mmap_layout() initializes mmap_legacy_base with > > TASK_UNMAPPED_BASE, which depends on TASK_SIZE. > > I don't like this patch so much because I think that we should figure > out how this will all work in the long run first. I've added some > more people to the thread because other arches have similar issues and > because x86 is about to get considerably more complicated (choices > include 3GB, 4GB, 47-bit, and 56-bit (the latter IIRC)). > > Here are a few of my thoughts on the matter. This isn't all that well > thought out: > > The address space limit, especially if CRIU is in play, isn't really a > hard limit. For example, you could allocate high memory then lower > the limit. Similarly, I see no reason that an x32 program should be > forbidden from mapping some high addresses or, similarly, that an i386 > program can't (if it really wanted to) do a 64-bit mmap() and get a > high address. > > On that note, can we just *delete* the task_size check from pagemap? > It's been there since the very beginning: > > commit 85863e475e59afb027b0113290e3796ee6020b7d > Author: Matt Mackall > Date: Mon Feb 4 22:29:04 2008 -0800 > > maps4: add /proc/pid/pagemap interface > > and there's no explanation for why it's needed. > > So maybe we should have a *number* (not a bit) that indicates the > maximum address that mmap() will return unless an override is in use. > Since common practice seems to be to stick this in the personality > field, we may need some fancy encoding. Executing a setuid binary > needs to reset to the default, and personality handles that. If we want to be able to specify arbitrary address as maximum, a fancy encoding would need to claim 51 bits (63 VA - 12 in-page address) on x86 from the persona flag. To me, it's stretching personality interface too far. Maybe it's easier to reset the rlimit for suid binaries? -- Kirill A. Shutemov
How should we handle variable address space sizes (Re: [RFC 3/4] x86/mm: define TASK_SIZE as current->mm->task_size)
On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 7:56 AM, Dmitry Safonovwrote: > Keep task's virtual address space size as mm_struct field which > exists for a long time - it's initialized in setup_new_exec() > depending on the new task's personality. > This way TASK_SIZE will always be the same as current->mm->task_size. > Previously, there could be an issue about different values of > TASK_SIZE and current->mm->task_size: e.g, a 32-bit process can unset > ADDR_LIMIT_3GB personality (with personality syscall) and > so TASK_SIZE will be 4Gb, which is larger than mm->task_size = 3Gb. > As TASK_SIZE *and* current->mm->task_size are used both in code > frequently, this difference creates a subtle situations, for example: > one can mmap addresses > 3Gb, but they will be hidden in > /proc/pid/pagemap as it checks mm->task_size. > I've moved initialization of mm->task_size earlier in setup_new_exec() > as arch_pick_mmap_layout() initializes mmap_legacy_base with > TASK_UNMAPPED_BASE, which depends on TASK_SIZE. I don't like this patch so much because I think that we should figure out how this will all work in the long run first. I've added some more people to the thread because other arches have similar issues and because x86 is about to get considerably more complicated (choices include 3GB, 4GB, 47-bit, and 56-bit (the latter IIRC)). Here are a few of my thoughts on the matter. This isn't all that well thought out: The address space limit, especially if CRIU is in play, isn't really a hard limit. For example, you could allocate high memory then lower the limit. Similarly, I see no reason that an x32 program should be forbidden from mapping some high addresses or, similarly, that an i386 program can't (if it really wanted to) do a 64-bit mmap() and get a high address. On that note, can we just *delete* the task_size check from pagemap? It's been there since the very beginning: commit 85863e475e59afb027b0113290e3796ee6020b7d Author: Matt Mackall Date: Mon Feb 4 22:29:04 2008 -0800 maps4: add /proc/pid/pagemap interface and there's no explanation for why it's needed. So maybe we should have a *number* (not a bit) that indicates the maximum address that mmap() will return unless an override is in use. Since common practice seems to be to stick this in the personality field, we may need some fancy encoding. Executing a setuid binary needs to reset to the default, and personality handles that. We should also probably come up with a reasonable set of getters and setters for CRIU and otherwise. I can think of the following questions that might be asked: - What is the highest currently mapped VA? (/proc can already answer this. If needed, a prctl could be added, too. Using /proc is a bit tricky due to out-of-range "gate areas", e.g. the x86 vsyscall page.) - What is the highest address that mmap() will return without being forced? On x86 and sparc, this could plausbly be extra complicated because there are multiple "mmap()" syscalls (32-bit vs 64-bit), so an i386 process could theoretically have a limit of 2^47-1, for example. I doubt this matters much. I'm also not sure whether this should be per-task or per-mm. I can see legitimate use cases to set this to unusual numbers. For example, some x86 program could want 2^51-1 because it wants that many high bits free, even though this doesn't correspond to any particular hardware paging mode. This probably wants a getter and a setter. - What is the highest address that the hardware is capable of? (By this, I mean with the kernel's adjustments applied. x86_64 is currently capable of 2^47-1, but we artificially cap it to 2^47-4097 due to Intel having screwed up SYSRET.) This is just TASK_SIZE_MAX. I'm not sure we need a getter or a setter, since it doesn't seem all that useful to know. We still need to see if there should be some way for an ELF binary to be tagged with its maximum supported virtual address. If we do this, I would suggest an ELF note as a straw-man initial proposal. ELF notes are nice because I think they can be generated cleanly from C or asm without modifying binutils. I wouldn't mind seeing TASK_SIZE go away completely in the long run, since it's not clearly defined what it does. Also, it's worth noting that, in the absence of userspace making assumptions, no limit is needed at all. A 32-bit or x32 program should *automatically* get a limited address simply by virtue of making an mmap() syscall with the 32-bit or x32 ABI. Thoughts? P.S. If we add an ELF note saying "supports 57 bits", I think we should also add an ELF note saying "doesn't use vsyscalls", but that's a bit off topic. P.P.S. We can efficiently turn vsyscalls off per process. I even have code for it. It's a bit tricky and abuses some paging bits, but it works.
How should we handle variable address space sizes (Re: [RFC 3/4] x86/mm: define TASK_SIZE as current->mm->task_size)
On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 7:56 AM, Dmitry Safonov wrote: > Keep task's virtual address space size as mm_struct field which > exists for a long time - it's initialized in setup_new_exec() > depending on the new task's personality. > This way TASK_SIZE will always be the same as current->mm->task_size. > Previously, there could be an issue about different values of > TASK_SIZE and current->mm->task_size: e.g, a 32-bit process can unset > ADDR_LIMIT_3GB personality (with personality syscall) and > so TASK_SIZE will be 4Gb, which is larger than mm->task_size = 3Gb. > As TASK_SIZE *and* current->mm->task_size are used both in code > frequently, this difference creates a subtle situations, for example: > one can mmap addresses > 3Gb, but they will be hidden in > /proc/pid/pagemap as it checks mm->task_size. > I've moved initialization of mm->task_size earlier in setup_new_exec() > as arch_pick_mmap_layout() initializes mmap_legacy_base with > TASK_UNMAPPED_BASE, which depends on TASK_SIZE. I don't like this patch so much because I think that we should figure out how this will all work in the long run first. I've added some more people to the thread because other arches have similar issues and because x86 is about to get considerably more complicated (choices include 3GB, 4GB, 47-bit, and 56-bit (the latter IIRC)). Here are a few of my thoughts on the matter. This isn't all that well thought out: The address space limit, especially if CRIU is in play, isn't really a hard limit. For example, you could allocate high memory then lower the limit. Similarly, I see no reason that an x32 program should be forbidden from mapping some high addresses or, similarly, that an i386 program can't (if it really wanted to) do a 64-bit mmap() and get a high address. On that note, can we just *delete* the task_size check from pagemap? It's been there since the very beginning: commit 85863e475e59afb027b0113290e3796ee6020b7d Author: Matt Mackall Date: Mon Feb 4 22:29:04 2008 -0800 maps4: add /proc/pid/pagemap interface and there's no explanation for why it's needed. So maybe we should have a *number* (not a bit) that indicates the maximum address that mmap() will return unless an override is in use. Since common practice seems to be to stick this in the personality field, we may need some fancy encoding. Executing a setuid binary needs to reset to the default, and personality handles that. We should also probably come up with a reasonable set of getters and setters for CRIU and otherwise. I can think of the following questions that might be asked: - What is the highest currently mapped VA? (/proc can already answer this. If needed, a prctl could be added, too. Using /proc is a bit tricky due to out-of-range "gate areas", e.g. the x86 vsyscall page.) - What is the highest address that mmap() will return without being forced? On x86 and sparc, this could plausbly be extra complicated because there are multiple "mmap()" syscalls (32-bit vs 64-bit), so an i386 process could theoretically have a limit of 2^47-1, for example. I doubt this matters much. I'm also not sure whether this should be per-task or per-mm. I can see legitimate use cases to set this to unusual numbers. For example, some x86 program could want 2^51-1 because it wants that many high bits free, even though this doesn't correspond to any particular hardware paging mode. This probably wants a getter and a setter. - What is the highest address that the hardware is capable of? (By this, I mean with the kernel's adjustments applied. x86_64 is currently capable of 2^47-1, but we artificially cap it to 2^47-4097 due to Intel having screwed up SYSRET.) This is just TASK_SIZE_MAX. I'm not sure we need a getter or a setter, since it doesn't seem all that useful to know. We still need to see if there should be some way for an ELF binary to be tagged with its maximum supported virtual address. If we do this, I would suggest an ELF note as a straw-man initial proposal. ELF notes are nice because I think they can be generated cleanly from C or asm without modifying binutils. I wouldn't mind seeing TASK_SIZE go away completely in the long run, since it's not clearly defined what it does. Also, it's worth noting that, in the absence of userspace making assumptions, no limit is needed at all. A 32-bit or x32 program should *automatically* get a limited address simply by virtue of making an mmap() syscall with the 32-bit or x32 ABI. Thoughts? P.S. If we add an ELF note saying "supports 57 bits", I think we should also add an ELF note saying "doesn't use vsyscalls", but that's a bit off topic. P.P.S. We can efficiently turn vsyscalls off per process. I even have code for it. It's a bit tricky and abuses some paging bits, but it works.