Re: [RFC] invalidate_mmap_range() missesremap_file_pages()-affected targets
From: Andrew Morton
Date: Sun Oct 12 2003 - 06:51:16 EST
William Lee Irwin III <wli@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> invalidate_mmap_range(), and hence vmtruncate(), can miss its targets
> due to remap_file_pages() disturbing the former invariant of file
> offsets only being mapped within vmas tagged as mapping file offset
> ranges containing them.
I was going to just not bother about this wart. After all, we get to write
the standard on remap_file_pages(), and we can say "the
truncate-causes-SIGBUS thing doesn't work". After all, it is not very
But I wonder if this effect could be used maliciously. Say, user A has
read-only access to user B's file, and uses that access to set up a
nonlinear mapping thereby causing user B's truncate to not behave
correctly. But this example is OK, isn't it? User A will just receive an
anonymous page for his troubles.
Can you think of any stability or security scenario which says that we
_should_ implement the conventional truncate behaviour?
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/