All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
To: Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@yandex-team.ru>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] proc: do not show VmExe bigger than total executable virtual memory
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2017 18:25:25 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <8e7872bf-5af2-91db-f35e-921990849dda@suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bfa040ba-7935-02b6-3736-4b71aac31619@yandex-team.ru>

On 10/11/2017 09:00 AM, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
> On 11.10.2017 01:25, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 14:32:34 +0300 Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@yandex-team.ru> wrote:
>>
>>> If start_code / end_code pointers are screwed then "VmExe" could be bigger
>>> than total executable virtual memory and "VmLib" becomes negative:
>>>
>>> VmExe:	  294320 kB
>>> VmLib:	18446744073709327564 kB
>>>
>>> VmExe and VmLib documented as text segment and shared library code size.
>>>
>>> Now their sum will be always equal to mm->exec_vm which sums size of
>>> executable and not writable and not stack areas.
>>
>> When does this happen?  What causes start_code/end_code to get "screwed"?
> 
> I don't know exactly what happened.
> I've seen this for huge (>2Gb) statically linked binary which has whole world inside.
> 
> For it start_code .. end_code range also covers one of rodata sections.
> Probably this is bug in customized linker, elf loader or both.
> 
> Anyway CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_RESTORE allows to change these pointers,
> thus we cannot trust them without validation.

Please add this to changelog. I agree that it's better/safer after your
patch. These counters are fundamentally heuristics so we can't guarantee
"proper" values for weird binaries. exec_vm OTOH is an objective value
so it makes sense to use it as a safe boundary.

Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>

>>
>> When these pointers are screwed, the result of end_code-start_code can
>> still be wrong while not necessarily being negative, yes?  In which
>> case we'll still display incorrect output?
>>
> 
> Here we split exec_vm into main code segment and libraries.
> 
> Range start_code .. end_code declared as main code segment.
> In my case it's bigger than exec_vm, so libraries have to be negative.
> 
> After my patch libraries will be 0 and whole exec_vm show as VmExe.
> At least sum VmExe + VmLib stays correct and both of them sane.
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
> the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
> see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
> Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
> 

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
To: Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@yandex-team.ru>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] proc: do not show VmExe bigger than total executable virtual memory
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2017 18:25:25 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <8e7872bf-5af2-91db-f35e-921990849dda@suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bfa040ba-7935-02b6-3736-4b71aac31619@yandex-team.ru>

On 10/11/2017 09:00 AM, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
> On 11.10.2017 01:25, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 14:32:34 +0300 Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@yandex-team.ru> wrote:
>>
>>> If start_code / end_code pointers are screwed then "VmExe" could be bigger
>>> than total executable virtual memory and "VmLib" becomes negative:
>>>
>>> VmExe:	  294320 kB
>>> VmLib:	18446744073709327564 kB
>>>
>>> VmExe and VmLib documented as text segment and shared library code size.
>>>
>>> Now their sum will be always equal to mm->exec_vm which sums size of
>>> executable and not writable and not stack areas.
>>
>> When does this happen?  What causes start_code/end_code to get "screwed"?
> 
> I don't know exactly what happened.
> I've seen this for huge (>2Gb) statically linked binary which has whole world inside.
> 
> For it start_code .. end_code range also covers one of rodata sections.
> Probably this is bug in customized linker, elf loader or both.
> 
> Anyway CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_RESTORE allows to change these pointers,
> thus we cannot trust them without validation.

Please add this to changelog. I agree that it's better/safer after your
patch. These counters are fundamentally heuristics so we can't guarantee
"proper" values for weird binaries. exec_vm OTOH is an objective value
so it makes sense to use it as a safe boundary.

Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>

>>
>> When these pointers are screwed, the result of end_code-start_code can
>> still be wrong while not necessarily being negative, yes?  In which
>> case we'll still display incorrect output?
>>
> 
> Here we split exec_vm into main code segment and libraries.
> 
> Range start_code .. end_code declared as main code segment.
> In my case it's bigger than exec_vm, so libraries have to be negative.
> 
> After my patch libraries will be 0 and whole exec_vm show as VmExe.
> At least sum VmExe + VmLib stays correct and both of them sane.
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
> the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
> see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
> Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
> 

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

  reply	other threads:[~2017-12-01 17:26 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-10-06 11:32 [PATCH] proc: do not show VmExe bigger than total executable virtual memory Konstantin Khlebnikov
2017-10-06 11:32 ` Konstantin Khlebnikov
2017-10-10 22:25 ` Andrew Morton
2017-10-10 22:25   ` Andrew Morton
2017-10-11  7:00   ` Konstantin Khlebnikov
2017-10-11  7:00     ` Konstantin Khlebnikov
2017-12-01 17:25     ` Vlastimil Babka [this message]
2017-12-01 17:25       ` Vlastimil Babka

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=8e7872bf-5af2-91db-f35e-921990849dda@suse.cz \
    --to=vbabka@suse.cz \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=khlebnikov@yandex-team.ru \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.