John Baldwin schrieb am 2009-11-02:
> On Monday 02 November 2009 4:05:56 pm Alexander Best wrote:
> > John Baldwin schrieb am 2009-11-02:
> > > On Friday 30 October 2009 10:38:24 pm Alexander Best wrote:
> > > > John Baldwin schrieb am 2009-10-21:
> > > > > On Wednesday 21 October 2009 11:51:04 am Alexander Best
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > although the mmap(2) manual states in section MAP_ANON:
> > > > > > "The offset argument is ignored."
> > > > > > this doesn't seem to be true. running
> > > > > > printf("%p\n", mmap((void*)0x1000, 0x1000, PROT_NONE,
> > > > > > MAP_ANON,
> > > > > > -1,
> > > > > > 0x12345678));
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > printf("%p\n", mmap((void*)0x1000, 0x1000, PROT_NONE,
> > > > > > MAP_ANON,
> > > > > > -1,
> > > > > > 0));
> > > > > > produces different outputs. i've attached a patch to solve
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > problem. the
> > > > > > patch is similar to the one proposed in this PR, but should
> > > > > > apply
> > > > > > cleanly to
> > > > > > CURRENT:
> > > > > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=kern/71258
> > > > > A simpler patch would be to simply set pos = 0 below the
> > > > > MAP_STACK
> > > > > line if
> > > > > MAP_ANON is set.
> > > > how about the following patch. problem seems to be that pos = 0
> > > > needs to be
> > > > set before pageoff is being calculated.
> > > I think that that patch is fine, but will defer to a...@. I think
> > > he
> > > argued
> > > that any non-zero offset passed to MAP_ANON should fail with
> > > EINVAL.
> > thanks. if that's what the POSIX standard requests that's ok.
> > however in that
> > case we need to change the mmap(2) manual, because right now it
> > says in
> > section MAP_ANON:
> > "The offset argument is ignored."
> > which should be changed to something like:
> > "The offset argument must be zero."
> > also if the behaviour of MAP_ANON changes this also changes the
> > semantics of
> > MAP_STACK since it implies MAP_ANON. so we need to decide if
> > MAP_STACK should
> > silently reset any offset value to zero or like MAP_ANON should
> > fail if offset
> > isn't zero in which case the MAP_STACK section of the mmap(2)
> > manual needs to
> > be changed to someting like:
> > "MAP_STACK implies MAP_ANON, and requires offset to be zero."
> Right now MAP_STACK sets pos to 0 in the current code, and I don't
> expect we
> would remove that if we decide to reject non-zero offsets for
> MAP_ANON. I'd
> probably rather err on the side of leniency and just ignore the
> offset rather
> than rejecting non-zero, but I'm a bit burned from the last round of
> mmap()
> API changes. :)
hmmm...i think this will require quite a few changes. if i remember correctly
MAP_STACK at some point does:
flags =| MAP_ANON;
so if we decide MAP_ANON and MAP_STACK should behave differently this will
require some checks to distinguish between both flags further down in the
code.
let's see what alc@ thinks about this one then. API changes are a nasty nasty
business. ;)
_______________________________________________
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
