X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
DomainKey-Signature:	a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date
	:message-id:subject:to:content-type; q=dns; s=default; b=u7WnaGx
	Gys43VP+wKIhsNSLpX8qWlsSoGxtc14ZTa09s2TKXvbJ6ZRlaqRDjp/vLyJZq05Y
	adcBrxecX9j9q4TuXoP9KP8awZznYYO1kKfzDPDUoDOu1CsrBqx/jwU7+L8C2tre
	NHosCElWb2xVLEofQFVjjHRehxWm3vtYSodo=
DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date
	:message-id:subject:to:content-type; s=default; bh=pvaxeANSPOPNx
	IrneZCv3SBj6Cw=; b=ql2ik1H5NV4MXvqWZ4Gff+8sswjxvqfNkvGoZAjYkvuT6
	ECZYPhSKb4pEx6H4EBKWiRFxhdP1NGwxlNv3jVlG2XxwnNILpdsN/EYgxx0/hno1
	dws9k9QC46JiBHK/ehj577oI8fT/6bmyRTwwMj9qOhdy4U2jtF1r2UDGrlcX9E=
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Authentication-Results:	sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Spam-SWARE-Status:	No, score=-0.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS,UNSUBSCRIBE_BODY autolearn=no version=3.3.1 spammy=played
X-HELO:	mail-ot1-f65.google.com
DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=ONBfx58A1h3wbe02SABZ29zX8J4jb8O/7EhLAYkpvgY=; b=Fn3RCOU84g6psLQIXCg4K7paxs0TL95Ka/kka9mrNkgymm+EGIbeDGHwhbatnmHmX/ 9EGopxlNrALYri7U43dGwt+OUlsvGZmqE/zN+NXi9RD7JP4+YYzFEyjojnPA/DStBmvq rsn5MuXzIs12qcdpv/QoFEBh+mbsLvLSxPVvjMyllo5ctM+xSedqVv+9067U0xXqqHwj 0s2JJPdM8MexMMSwhTGhqD4mVap8ylkiA3MQ/m4Kfey4ch/pNaLTferWvaIfrtvYO52q IL0iWo8yZkhKyfciF3NB0maY0inxgq2xIb2HsovTDrTkoCOXzCCvR/D1KBoW4F62/Ljf eLBw==
MIME-Version:	1.0
References:	<CALLhcm4QGY+eP0_CRiSbJwQ12kOetvTK=6-AtC17x7d+QhGKTw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <20190603115456 DOT GG3437 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <CALLhcm4qaha=XuBWEqag7QH1veA82UrB94emFtFMd26dZ_ZGZQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <20190604131836 DOT GS3437 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <CALLhcm4sHGmFwki+RuUOUA-GfnXzmOUX4Tr8Es-=291Bo+A4dg AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <20190604144948 DOT GT3437 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de>
In-Reply-To:	<20190604144948.GT3437@calimero.vinschen.de>
From:	Stanislav Kascak <stanislav DOT kascak AT gmail DOT com>
Date:	Tue, 4 Jun 2019 18:01:53 +0200
Message-ID:	<CALLhcm5rKTVCD3Hb69CzC-94-86-PRpUofA9OEAy_mci1GnHQA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject:	Re: possible problem with memory allocation using calloc/mmap/munmap
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com, Stanislav Kascak <stanislav DOT kascak AT gmail DOT com>

> > > > > > It seems that when mmap() is called with length argument exceeding
> > > > > > size of file, only memory to fit that file is allocated. munmap()
> > > > > > however frees the full specified length. [...]
> > > > > [...]
> > > > > I know this situation is unsatisfying, but I have no easy workaround
> > > > > to allow this.  Cygwin could add the anonymous mapping on the next
> > > > > 64K boundary on 64 bit, but that would result in a hole in the mapping
> > > > > which seemed like a rather bad idea when porting mmap to 64 bit.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ken's also right that munmap is doing the right thing here.  If
> > > > > anything's wrong, it's mmap's workaround for mappings beyond the file
> > > > > length.  If only 64 bit would allow 4K-aligned mappings :(
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for the answer. It is appreciated.
> > > > I understand the problem and difficulty to resolve it. Maybe returning
> > > > an error from mmap (and putting a comment to code for its reason)
> > > > would be sufficient. mmap caller could just adjust requested
> > > > allocation size to file size. Without error, caller has no way of
> > > > knowing memory was not allocated and segfault is then thrown in an
> > > > unrelated memory segment which makes the root cause hard to track
> > > > down. But, I do not know all the implication that could result from
> > > > that, so evaluation of this approach is up to you.
> > > [...]
> > > Eventually Cygwin adds another mapping to fullfill the entire mapping
> > > request:
> > >
> > >  |-- file 4K --|-- filler 60K --|-- filler 192K --|
> > >
> > > The problem on WOW64 and real 64 bit is that it's impossible to map
> > > the first filler.  However, this area in the VM will *never* be
> > > allocated by other application functions due to the allocation
> > > granularity of 64K!
> > >
> > > So my workaround for 64 bit and WOW64 is to just skip allocating the
> > > first filler:
> > >
> > >  |-- file 4K --|-- THE VOID 60K --|-- filler 192K --|
> > >
> > > The advantage is now that the following munmap of 256K will only
> > > unmap the map for the file and the filler, but not the region you
> > > calloced before, which formerly was accidentally mapped to the
> > > filler region.  This just can't happen anymore now.
> > >
> > > Would that be feasible?  If so I can push my patch and create a
> > > developer snapshot for testing.
> >
> > Two questions arise when I'm thinking about workaround solution:
> > - what happens if caller tries to write to |-- THE VOID 60K --|. Since
> > this is unallocated, would there be a segfault?
>
> Accessing the VOID would raise SIGSEGV, while accessing the filler
> raises SIGBUS.  The latter is also used to implement MAP_NORESERVE,
> which the VOID can't support.

I played around a bit and I can confirm it would be consistent with
current behavior:
memwrite <0 - filesize) - no error, written to file
memwrite <filesize - 4k) - no error, no file change
memwrite <4k, 64k) - SIGSEGV
memwrite <64k, mmap alloc size) - SIGSEGV or another mem alloc
overwrite (depending on whether there is another allocation)
With workaround last line would be fixed to SIGBUS (along with proper
allocation length). I believe this is completely OK.

>
> > - is it possible that some subsequent mem alloc request would return
> > region from |-- THE VOID 60K --| which could again cause segfault
> > after munmap?
>
> No, as stated above.  Allocations are restricted to Windows' 64K
> allocation granularity.

I apologize. I missed that sentence. So, your workaround seems fine.

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

- Raw text -