This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] Linux: Use mmap instead of malloc in dirent/tst-getdents64



On 28/06/2019 09:04, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Adhemerval Zanella:
> 
>> On 28/06/2019 05:49, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>> malloc dirties the entire allocated memory region due to M_PERTURB
>>> in the test harness.
>>>
>>> 2019-06-28  Florian Weimer  <fweimer@redhat.com>
>>>
>>> 	* sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/tst-getdents64.c (large_buffer_checks):
>>> 	Use mmap instead of malloc.  malloc with M_PERTURB writes to the
>>> 	entire allocated memory range.
>>
>> LGTM.
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org>
> 
> Thanks!
> 
>>> diff --git a/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/tst-getdents64.c b/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/tst-getdents64.c
>>> index 24e77e04d8..8a28e6c67c 100644
>>> --- a/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/tst-getdents64.c
>>> +++ b/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/tst-getdents64.c
>>> @@ -27,6 +27,7 @@
>>>  #include <support/check.h>
>>>  #include <support/support.h>
>>>  #include <support/xunistd.h>
>>> +#include <sys/mman.h>
>>>  #include <unistd.h>
>>>  
>>>  /* Called by large_buffer_checks below.  */
>>> @@ -53,8 +54,13 @@ large_buffer_checks (int fd)
>>>    size_t large_buffer_size;
>>>    if (!__builtin_add_overflow (UINT_MAX, 2, &large_buffer_size))
>>>      {
>>> -      char *large_buffer = malloc (large_buffer_size);
>>> -      if (large_buffer == NULL)
>>> +      int flags = MAP_ANONYMOUS | MAP_PRIVATE;
>>> +#ifdef MAP_NORESERVE
>>> +      flags |= MAP_NORESERVE;
>>> +#endif
>>> +      void *large_buffer = mmap (NULL, large_buffer_size,
>>> +                                 PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE, flags, -1, 0);
>>> +      if (large_buffer == MAP_FAILED)
>>
>> Should we really skip the test instead of using xmmap? The only case I think of
>> that it might fail is if kernel can't allocate bookeeping memory for the page
>> table itself, but I really think it unlikely (sanitizer usually allocates a
>> lot of VMA as well).
> 
> MAP_NORESERVE is a misnomer; it does not do what it says.  It disables
> the overcommit heuristics for vm.overcommit_memory=0, but not for
> vm.overcommit_memory=2.  mmap can also fail due to resource limits on
> address space, not residential memory.  So I think the code above is the
> best we can do.

Alright, but my point is for usual 64-bit architecture (which the test
are actually exercised) mapping 4GB of memory shouldn't really be a
problem. The change looks ok, I would just like to make is more explicit
that the tests passed, but not all sub-tests ran. 


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]