The current code fails to print the "[heap]" marking if the heap is split
into multiple mappings.
Fix the check so that the marking is displayed in all possible cases:
1. vma matches exactly the heap
2. the heap vma is merged e.g. with bss
3. the heap vma is splitted e.g. due to locked pages
Test cases. In all cases, the process should have mapping(s) with
[heap] marking:
(1) vma matches exactly the heap
#include <stdio.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <sys/types.h>
int main (void)
{
if (sbrk(4096) != (void *)-1) {
printf("check /proc/%d/maps\n", (int)getpid());
while (1)
sleep(1);
}
return 0;
}
# ./test1
check /proc/553/maps
[1] + Stopped ./test1
# cat /proc/553/maps | head -4
00008000-00009000 r-xp 00000000 01:00 3113640 /test1
00010000-00011000 rw-p 00000000 01:00 3113640 /test1
00011000-00012000 rw-p 00000000 00:00 0 [heap]
4006f000-40070000 rw-p 00000000 00:00 0
(2) the heap vma is merged
#include <stdio.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <sys/types.h>
char foo[4096] = "foo";
char bar[4096];
int main (void)
{
if (sbrk(4096) != (void *)-1) {
printf("check /proc/%d/maps\n", (int)getpid());
while (1)
sleep(1);
}
return 0;
}
# ./test2
check /proc/556/maps
[2] + Stopped ./test2
# cat /proc/556/maps | head -4
00008000-00009000 r-xp 00000000 01:00 3116312 /test2
00010000-00012000 rw-p 00000000 01:00 3116312 /test2
00012000-00014000 rw-p 00000000 00:00 0 [heap]
4004a000-4004b000 rw-p 00000000 00:00 0
(3) the heap vma is splitted (this fails without the patch)
#include <stdio.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <sys/mman.h>
#include <sys/types.h>
int main (void)
{
if ((sbrk(4096) != (void *)-1) && !mlockall(MCL_FUTURE) &&
(sbrk(4096) != (void *)-1)) {
printf("check /proc/%d/maps\n", (int)getpid());
while (1)
sleep(1);
}
return 0;
}
# ./test3
check /proc/559/maps
[1] + Stopped ./test3
# cat /proc/559/maps|head -4
00008000-00009000 r-xp 00000000 01:00 3119108 /test3
00010000-00011000 rw-p 00000000 01:00 3119108 /test3
00011000-00012000 rw-p 00000000 00:00 0 [heap]
00012000-00013000 rw-p 00000000 00:00 0 [heap]
It looks like the bug has been there forever, and since it only results in
some information missing from a procfile, it does not fulfil the -stable
"critical issue" criteria.
Signed-off-by: Aaro Koskinen <aaro.koskinen@nokia.com>
Reviewed-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
0db0c01b53