mmap: effect of other processes writing to a file previously mapped read-onlyHow does copy-on-write in fork() handle multiple fork?Writing own daemon. systemd error: Failed to read PID from file: Invalid argumentPagemap on memory mapped devices not workingWhen writing a file, permissions are write onlyUnderstanding MMAPMonitoring page cache / memory mapped files accessmajor page faults on anon mappingsHow to use dd if=/dev/mem in place of devmem ?Is there a standard for the Linux user-space memory map?
Is a world with one country feeding everyone possible?
How to make Flex Markers appear in Logic Pro X?
Why do testers need root cause analysis?
Does the fact that we can only measure the two-way speed of light undermine the axiom of invariance?
Gas chromatography flame ionization detector (FID) - why hydrogen gas?
Why is 'additive' EQ more difficult to use than 'subtractive'?
Managing heat dissipation in a magic wand
Does attacking (or having a rider attack) cancel Charge/Pounce-like abilities?
Sony VAIO Duo 13 Wifi not working on Ubuntu 16.04
Keeping the dodos out of the field
What is the winged creature on the back of the Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes book?
One word for 'the thing that attracts me'?
What pc resources are used when bruteforcing?
How to test if argument is a single space?
Is there a solution to paying high fees when opening and closing lightning channels once we hit a fee only market?
Salesforce bug enabled "Modify All"
Must every right-inverse of a linear transformation be a linear transformation?
Efficient Algorithms for Destroyed Document Reconstruction
csname in newenviroment
Does science define life as "beginning at conception"?
Passport queue length in UK in relation to arrival method
Adobe Illustrator: How can I change the profile of a dashed stroke?
Surface of the 3x3x3 cube as a graph
Is ideal gas incompressible?
mmap: effect of other processes writing to a file previously mapped read-only
How does copy-on-write in fork() handle multiple fork?Writing own daemon. systemd error: Failed to read PID from file: Invalid argumentPagemap on memory mapped devices not workingWhen writing a file, permissions are write onlyUnderstanding MMAPMonitoring page cache / memory mapped files accessmajor page faults on anon mappingsHow to use dd if=/dev/mem in place of devmem ?Is there a standard for the Linux user-space memory map?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
I am trying to understand what happens when a file, which has been mapped into memory by the mmap
system call, is subsequently written to by other processes.
I have mmap
ed memory with PROT_READ
protection in "process A". If I close the underlying file descriptor in process A, and another process later writes to that file (not using mmap
; just a simple redirection of stdout to the file using >
in the shell), is the mmap
ed memory in the address space of process A affected? Given that the pages are read-only, I would expect them not to change. However, process A is being terminated by SIGBUS
signals as a result of invalid memory accesses (Non-existent physical address at address 0x[...]
) when trying to parse the mapped memory. I am suspecting that this is stemming from writes to the backing file by other processes. Would setting MAP_PRIVATE
be sufficient to completely protect this memory from other processes?
c mmap
add a comment |
I am trying to understand what happens when a file, which has been mapped into memory by the mmap
system call, is subsequently written to by other processes.
I have mmap
ed memory with PROT_READ
protection in "process A". If I close the underlying file descriptor in process A, and another process later writes to that file (not using mmap
; just a simple redirection of stdout to the file using >
in the shell), is the mmap
ed memory in the address space of process A affected? Given that the pages are read-only, I would expect them not to change. However, process A is being terminated by SIGBUS
signals as a result of invalid memory accesses (Non-existent physical address at address 0x[...]
) when trying to parse the mapped memory. I am suspecting that this is stemming from writes to the backing file by other processes. Would setting MAP_PRIVATE
be sufficient to completely protect this memory from other processes?
c mmap
add a comment |
I am trying to understand what happens when a file, which has been mapped into memory by the mmap
system call, is subsequently written to by other processes.
I have mmap
ed memory with PROT_READ
protection in "process A". If I close the underlying file descriptor in process A, and another process later writes to that file (not using mmap
; just a simple redirection of stdout to the file using >
in the shell), is the mmap
ed memory in the address space of process A affected? Given that the pages are read-only, I would expect them not to change. However, process A is being terminated by SIGBUS
signals as a result of invalid memory accesses (Non-existent physical address at address 0x[...]
) when trying to parse the mapped memory. I am suspecting that this is stemming from writes to the backing file by other processes. Would setting MAP_PRIVATE
be sufficient to completely protect this memory from other processes?
c mmap
I am trying to understand what happens when a file, which has been mapped into memory by the mmap
system call, is subsequently written to by other processes.
I have mmap
ed memory with PROT_READ
protection in "process A". If I close the underlying file descriptor in process A, and another process later writes to that file (not using mmap
; just a simple redirection of stdout to the file using >
in the shell), is the mmap
ed memory in the address space of process A affected? Given that the pages are read-only, I would expect them not to change. However, process A is being terminated by SIGBUS
signals as a result of invalid memory accesses (Non-existent physical address at address 0x[...]
) when trying to parse the mapped memory. I am suspecting that this is stemming from writes to the backing file by other processes. Would setting MAP_PRIVATE
be sufficient to completely protect this memory from other processes?
c mmap
c mmap
asked 3 hours ago
user001user001
1,63232141
1,63232141
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
If I close the underlying file descriptor in process A,
closing the file descriptor doesn't change anything at all
another process later writes to that file (not using mmap; just a simple redirection of stdout to the file using > in the shell), is the mmaped memory in the address space of process A affected?
It may be. The manpage of mmap(2)
says:
MAP_PRIVATE
...
It is unspecified whether changes made to the file
after the mmap() call are visible in the mapped region.
In practice, changes made by other processes seem to be reflected in the content of the mmaped region, at least for regular files.
However, process A is being terminated by SIGBUS signals as a result of invalid memory accesses (Non-existent physical address at address 0x[...]) when trying to parse the mapped memory.
I'm expecting that to happen when you truncate a mmaped file.
Would setting
MAP_PRIVATE
be sufficient to completely protect this memory from other processes?
No, MAP_PRIVATE
only prevent modifications to the memory from being carried through to the backing file, not the reverse.
Thanks, that helps. So it sounds likemmap
is not the right tool for reading (and preserving in memory) the current state of a file, when that file might be modified by other processes before the memory has been completely read by the process which created the map?
– user001
1 hour ago
1
hurd seems to have aMAP_COPY
for that, but that's not supported on Linux/BSD/Solaris/etc. You can read more about it here.
– mosvy
58 mins ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "106"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f519850%2fmmap-effect-of-other-processes-writing-to-a-file-previously-mapped-read-only%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
If I close the underlying file descriptor in process A,
closing the file descriptor doesn't change anything at all
another process later writes to that file (not using mmap; just a simple redirection of stdout to the file using > in the shell), is the mmaped memory in the address space of process A affected?
It may be. The manpage of mmap(2)
says:
MAP_PRIVATE
...
It is unspecified whether changes made to the file
after the mmap() call are visible in the mapped region.
In practice, changes made by other processes seem to be reflected in the content of the mmaped region, at least for regular files.
However, process A is being terminated by SIGBUS signals as a result of invalid memory accesses (Non-existent physical address at address 0x[...]) when trying to parse the mapped memory.
I'm expecting that to happen when you truncate a mmaped file.
Would setting
MAP_PRIVATE
be sufficient to completely protect this memory from other processes?
No, MAP_PRIVATE
only prevent modifications to the memory from being carried through to the backing file, not the reverse.
Thanks, that helps. So it sounds likemmap
is not the right tool for reading (and preserving in memory) the current state of a file, when that file might be modified by other processes before the memory has been completely read by the process which created the map?
– user001
1 hour ago
1
hurd seems to have aMAP_COPY
for that, but that's not supported on Linux/BSD/Solaris/etc. You can read more about it here.
– mosvy
58 mins ago
add a comment |
If I close the underlying file descriptor in process A,
closing the file descriptor doesn't change anything at all
another process later writes to that file (not using mmap; just a simple redirection of stdout to the file using > in the shell), is the mmaped memory in the address space of process A affected?
It may be. The manpage of mmap(2)
says:
MAP_PRIVATE
...
It is unspecified whether changes made to the file
after the mmap() call are visible in the mapped region.
In practice, changes made by other processes seem to be reflected in the content of the mmaped region, at least for regular files.
However, process A is being terminated by SIGBUS signals as a result of invalid memory accesses (Non-existent physical address at address 0x[...]) when trying to parse the mapped memory.
I'm expecting that to happen when you truncate a mmaped file.
Would setting
MAP_PRIVATE
be sufficient to completely protect this memory from other processes?
No, MAP_PRIVATE
only prevent modifications to the memory from being carried through to the backing file, not the reverse.
Thanks, that helps. So it sounds likemmap
is not the right tool for reading (and preserving in memory) the current state of a file, when that file might be modified by other processes before the memory has been completely read by the process which created the map?
– user001
1 hour ago
1
hurd seems to have aMAP_COPY
for that, but that's not supported on Linux/BSD/Solaris/etc. You can read more about it here.
– mosvy
58 mins ago
add a comment |
If I close the underlying file descriptor in process A,
closing the file descriptor doesn't change anything at all
another process later writes to that file (not using mmap; just a simple redirection of stdout to the file using > in the shell), is the mmaped memory in the address space of process A affected?
It may be. The manpage of mmap(2)
says:
MAP_PRIVATE
...
It is unspecified whether changes made to the file
after the mmap() call are visible in the mapped region.
In practice, changes made by other processes seem to be reflected in the content of the mmaped region, at least for regular files.
However, process A is being terminated by SIGBUS signals as a result of invalid memory accesses (Non-existent physical address at address 0x[...]) when trying to parse the mapped memory.
I'm expecting that to happen when you truncate a mmaped file.
Would setting
MAP_PRIVATE
be sufficient to completely protect this memory from other processes?
No, MAP_PRIVATE
only prevent modifications to the memory from being carried through to the backing file, not the reverse.
If I close the underlying file descriptor in process A,
closing the file descriptor doesn't change anything at all
another process later writes to that file (not using mmap; just a simple redirection of stdout to the file using > in the shell), is the mmaped memory in the address space of process A affected?
It may be. The manpage of mmap(2)
says:
MAP_PRIVATE
...
It is unspecified whether changes made to the file
after the mmap() call are visible in the mapped region.
In practice, changes made by other processes seem to be reflected in the content of the mmaped region, at least for regular files.
However, process A is being terminated by SIGBUS signals as a result of invalid memory accesses (Non-existent physical address at address 0x[...]) when trying to parse the mapped memory.
I'm expecting that to happen when you truncate a mmaped file.
Would setting
MAP_PRIVATE
be sufficient to completely protect this memory from other processes?
No, MAP_PRIVATE
only prevent modifications to the memory from being carried through to the backing file, not the reverse.
answered 1 hour ago
mosvymosvy
11.6k11340
11.6k11340
Thanks, that helps. So it sounds likemmap
is not the right tool for reading (and preserving in memory) the current state of a file, when that file might be modified by other processes before the memory has been completely read by the process which created the map?
– user001
1 hour ago
1
hurd seems to have aMAP_COPY
for that, but that's not supported on Linux/BSD/Solaris/etc. You can read more about it here.
– mosvy
58 mins ago
add a comment |
Thanks, that helps. So it sounds likemmap
is not the right tool for reading (and preserving in memory) the current state of a file, when that file might be modified by other processes before the memory has been completely read by the process which created the map?
– user001
1 hour ago
1
hurd seems to have aMAP_COPY
for that, but that's not supported on Linux/BSD/Solaris/etc. You can read more about it here.
– mosvy
58 mins ago
Thanks, that helps. So it sounds like
mmap
is not the right tool for reading (and preserving in memory) the current state of a file, when that file might be modified by other processes before the memory has been completely read by the process which created the map?– user001
1 hour ago
Thanks, that helps. So it sounds like
mmap
is not the right tool for reading (and preserving in memory) the current state of a file, when that file might be modified by other processes before the memory has been completely read by the process which created the map?– user001
1 hour ago
1
1
hurd seems to have a
MAP_COPY
for that, but that's not supported on Linux/BSD/Solaris/etc. You can read more about it here.– mosvy
58 mins ago
hurd seems to have a
MAP_COPY
for that, but that's not supported on Linux/BSD/Solaris/etc. You can read more about it here.– mosvy
58 mins ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Unix & Linux Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f519850%2fmmap-effect-of-other-processes-writing-to-a-file-previously-mapped-read-only%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown