public inbox for glibc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "fweimer at redhat dot com" <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org>
To: glibc-bugs@sourceware.org
Subject: [Bug dynamic-link/31076] Extra struct vm_area_struct with ---p created when PAGE_SIZE < max-page-size
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2023 11:57:13 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-31076-131-GfZdfDgWPD@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-31076-131@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31076

--- Comment #18 from Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com> ---
(In reply to Kalesh Singh from comment #15)
> AIUI if the runtime-page-size equals the max-page-size, the holes are also
> mapped in as part of the segment mapping and share the same permissions.
> Does this mean that on such systems, any protection it offers becomes void?

That's my understanding. The current behavior gives programmers the *option* to
avoid mapping extra code on small-page systems, while maintaining compatibility
with large-page systems. The proposed change to over-map to the next
load-segment, to fill the gap, would take away that option. Unmapping (to
create a gap) has compatibility implications.

Just to clarify, I'm opposed to a glibc change here mainly because it's not
necessary to enable the desired behavior (fewer VMAs), and it removes
functionality that people might find useful. The link editor merely needs to
over-map in the generated LOAD segments, then there won't be any gaps for the
loader to process.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2023-12-06 11:57 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-11-18 18:48 [Bug dynamic-link/31076] New: " jyescas at google dot com
2023-11-18 18:50 ` [Bug dynamic-link/31076] " jyescas at google dot com
2023-11-21 13:42 ` carlos at redhat dot com
2023-11-22  0:39 ` i at maskray dot me
2023-11-22  4:33 ` kaleshsingh at google dot com
2023-11-22 18:19 ` jyescas at google dot com
2023-11-23 11:42 ` sam at gentoo dot org
2023-11-24 17:40 ` adhemerval.zanella at linaro dot org
2023-11-27 15:11 ` fweimer at redhat dot com
2023-11-27 15:22 ` fweimer at redhat dot com
2023-11-27 16:27 ` adhemerval.zanella at linaro dot org
2023-11-27 17:19 ` fweimer at redhat dot com
2023-11-27 17:39 ` adhemerval.zanella at linaro dot org
2023-11-27 17:45 ` fweimer at redhat dot com
2023-11-27 17:58 ` adhemerval.zanella at linaro dot org
2023-11-27 19:47 ` jyescas at google dot com
2023-11-27 19:55 ` jyescas at google dot com
2023-11-28  8:48 ` rprichard at google dot com
2023-11-28 18:59 ` kaleshsingh at google dot com
2023-11-28 23:58 ` jyescas at google dot com
2023-12-02 17:08 ` i at maskray dot me
2023-12-06 11:57 ` fweimer at redhat dot com [this message]
2023-12-07  5:11 ` i at maskray dot me
2023-12-07  9:30 ` fweimer at redhat dot com
2023-12-08  3:22 ` i at maskray dot me

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=bug-31076-131-GfZdfDgWPD@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/ \
    --to=sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org \
    --cc=glibc-bugs@sourceware.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).