Re: Concerning a post that you made about expandable anonymous sharedmappings

From: William Tambe
Date: Tue Jul 10 2007 - 16:58:47 EST




Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jul 2007, William Tambe wrote:
Hugh Dickins wrote:
I've come right around to your original view, Stas, and William's:
if that mmap creates such an object, then the expanding mremap really
ought to be useful, and allow the underlying object to be expanded.
The shared anonymous object is already anomalous: expanding it on
fault makes it more consistent with its own nature, not less.
...
Here's a patch against 2.6.22-rc7: would you, Stas, put your
Signed-off-by into this, and accept authorship - although I'm
sending this back to you, it's very much your idea, and only
trivially modified from your three-year-old patch by me. If
you're agreeable, I can then forward it or its shmem_zero_fault
equivalent to Andrew when we see which way 2.6.23 is going.
... Will this patch be added to stable versions of the linux kernel?
Please let me know.

I confess that the lukewarm response from Stas cooled my enthusiasm,
and left me feeling that perhaps I'm an idiot to be adding such a
feature so many years too late; and my old caution about the way
a child could use up memory not freed on child's exit, unknown to
parent, returned to haunt me. That could be documented for new
usages, but I just don't know what usages are already out there,
and fear I'd be introducing an exploit.

It most certainly will not be added to a stable version of the
linux kernel, if by that you mean 2.6.22.N or 2.6.21.N etc.
Though it can be viewed as a bugfix, the patch as it stands
seems in danger of introducing its own bug, and it's just too
much of a feature to be suitable for a -stable release.

But more probably you meant, will it be in 2.6.23 or 2.6.24?
Sorry to be such a vacillatiing wimp, but I don't know.
How well are you managing with the shm_open approach?

Hugh


I understand your concern. But since I am working on a dynamic memory management code that I wish to use with other projects that I have, I didn't find appropriate to use shm_open.

In fact there is a name associated with the shared memory requested with shm_open, so that it can be mmap(ed) in another process. And I do not wish to have it accessible by any other process, unless I choose to do so.

shm_open is great, but it doesn't quite fit my needs.
And I think remap(ing) ANONYMOUS memory kind of make a lot of things easier.

Can that feature be added at least to release candidates series so that everybody can try it and see how well it does?

Sincerely,
William Tambe
-
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/