Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2009 02:59:46 +0100 (CET) From: Alexander Best <alexbestms@math.uni-muenster.de> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>, <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Cc: Alexander Best <alexbestms@math.uni-muenster.de>, Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org>, Nate Eldredge <nate@thatsmathematics.com> Subject: Re: mmap(2) segaults with certain len values and MAP_ANON|MAP_FIXED Message-ID: <permail-20091031015946f0889e8400004f71-a_best01@message-id.uni-muenster.de> In-Reply-To: <200910211340.39872.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
John Baldwin schrieb am 2009-10-21: > On Wednesday 21 October 2009 11:30:51 am Alexander Best wrote: > > Robert Watson schrieb am 2009-10-21: > > > On Wed, 21 Oct 2009, Alexander Best wrote: > > > >this code serves only one purpose: to trigger a segfault. i > > > >don't > > > >use the code for any other purpose. i was under the impression > > > >that > > > >mmap() should either succeed or fail (tertium non datur). mmap's > > > >manual doesn't say anything about mmap() causing segfaults. > > > Have you tried ktracing the application? I think you'll find > > > that > > > mmap(2) system call succeeded fine, and that the segfault comes > > > from > > > attempting to execute the address in libc on return to userspace, > > > as > > > a result of libc not being at that address anymore (since you > > > removed its mapping). You can use procstat -v to inspect address > > > space use by processes, but as a general rule you don't want to > > > pass > > > anything other than an address of 0x0 to mmap(2) unless you're > > > very > > > carefully managing the address space of the process. Many > > > userspace > > > libraries are involved in using that address space, but > > > especially > > > the runtime linker which begins execution in userspace when a > > > binary > > > is started. > > > Robert N M Watson > > > Computer Laboratory > > > University of Cambridge > > you're right. this kdump shows that the segfault isn't being caused > > by the > > mmap() call: > > 88343 mmap_test CALL > > mmap(0x1000,0x80047000,PROT_NONE,MAP_FIXED|MAP_ANON,0xffffffff,0,0) > > 88343 mmap_test RET mmap 4096/0x1000 > > 88343 mmap_test PSIG SIGSEGV SIG_DFL > > 88343 mmap_test NAMI "mmap_test.core" > > thanks for clearing things up. > > however i stil think mentioning this situation in the mmap(2) > > manual (maybe in > > section MAP_FIXED) would be a good idea. > I'm not sure it is useful to attempt to enumerate all the possible > ways one > can shoot one's own foot using mmap(2) in the manual page. The list > would be > quite long and would require a large amount of imagination. In > effect, you > are asking for a manual page to document all the possible bugs one > could have > and manual pages in general do not do that. you're probably right. documenting all things one can do wrong using mmap isn't what the manual is supposed to do. thanks for the help. alex
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?permail-20091031015946f0889e8400004f71-a_best01>