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:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:reply-to
	:references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; q=dns; s=
	default; b=lIOnedyAPF9oG+mbFrIbVoQXGLnPfN6zASZY6dBXEFfb29BNAw28e
	Kj9Xo1W+eNUkNPEqSb1LYTQtAmQMyOocc1VilvBSLAeHoK3PVcSKcad12eKtgR8r
	n0xLwwrTjG/deiMt95BoYT6ZD4ClAhIpJZ7QlSM/mV8Or2r+PpNm9I=
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:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:reply-to
	:references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; s=default;
	bh=tqfCZzwwZkoQQKuLOpqzKYVkPZo=; b=DSnCN835hN3Hyp51QepaX1/Jns89
	dd10ckLrauYLtNd0Pz6msmjYOcDoA6O8S3NiUwJKq3MkvQqwi0CXCqeKLBKVGap3
	gK7W4FOkO5tSc8pOlodZFCxKNfXPnztNcO5hWsiSGlXibPp/V1NAR13qFeUj5ar5
	ycR8mZy1KifZl+4=
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=-101.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,GOOD_FROM_CORINNA_CYGWIN,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,UNSUBSCRIBE_BODY autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=H*F:D*cygwin.com
X-HELO:	mout.kundenserver.de
Date:	Wed, 5 Jun 2019 20:23:15 +0200
From:	Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
To:	Stanislav Kascak <stanislav DOT kascak AT gmail DOT com>
Cc:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: possible problem with memory allocation using calloc/mmap/munmap
Message-ID:	<20190605182315.GZ3437@calimero.vinschen.de>
Reply-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	Stanislav Kascak <stanislav DOT kascak AT gmail DOT com>, cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
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> <CALLhcm5rKTVCD3Hb69CzC-94-86-PRpUofA9OEAy_mci1GnHQA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
MIME-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<CALLhcm5rKTVCD3Hb69CzC-94-86-PRpUofA9OEAy_mci1GnHQA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.11.3 (2019-02-01)

--xMJbWctQEcNQiBqK
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Jun  4 18:01, Stanislav Kascak wrote:
> > > > > > > It seems that when mmap() is called with length argument exce=
eding
> > > > > > > size of file, only memory to fit that file is allocated. munm=
ap()
> > > > > > > however frees the full specified length. [...]
> > > > > > [...]
> > > > > > I know this situation is unsatisfying, but I have no easy worka=
round
> > > > > > to allow this.  Cygwin could add the anonymous mapping on the n=
ext
> > > > > > 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 th=
e 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 retu=
rning
> > > > > 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 fr=
om
> > > > > that, so evaluation of this approach is up to you.
> > > > [...]
> > > > Eventually Cygwin adds another mapping to fullfill the entire mappi=
ng
> > > > 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> >
> > > - 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.
>=20
> I apologize. I missed that sentence. So, your workaround seems fine.

Please try the latest snapshot from https://cygwin.com/snapshots/
Just replacing the Cygwin DLL is sufficient.


Thanks,
Corinna

--=20
Corinna Vinschen
Cygwin Maintainer

--xMJbWctQEcNQiBqK
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=nlk7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--xMJbWctQEcNQiBqK--

- Raw text -