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;








1















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 mmaped 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 mmaped 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?










share|improve this question




























    1















    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 mmaped 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 mmaped 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?










    share|improve this question
























      1












      1








      1


      1






      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 mmaped 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 mmaped 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?










      share|improve this question














      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 mmaped 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 mmaped 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






      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question











      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question










      asked 3 hours ago









      user001user001

      1,63232141




      1,63232141




















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          3















          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.






          share|improve this answer























          • 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





            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











          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
          );



          );













          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          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









          3















          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.






          share|improve this answer























          • 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





            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















          3















          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.






          share|improve this answer























          • 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





            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













          3












          3








          3








          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.






          share|improve this answer














          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.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered 1 hour ago









          mosvymosvy

          11.6k11340




          11.6k11340












          • 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





            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

















          • 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





            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
















          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

















          draft saved

          draft discarded
















































          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.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          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





















































          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







          Popular posts from this blog

          ParseJSON using SSJSUsing AMPscript with SSJS ActivitiesHow to resubscribe a user in Marketing cloud using SSJS?Pulling Subscriber Status from Lists using SSJSRetrieving Emails using SSJSProblem in updating DE using SSJSUsing SSJS to send single email in Marketing CloudError adding EmailSendDefinition using SSJS

          Кампала Садржај Географија Географија Историја Становништво Привреда Партнерски градови Референце Спољашње везе Мени за навигацију0°11′ СГШ; 32°20′ ИГД / 0.18° СГШ; 32.34° ИГД / 0.18; 32.340°11′ СГШ; 32°20′ ИГД / 0.18° СГШ; 32.34° ИГД / 0.18; 32.34МедијиПодациЗванични веб-сајту

          19. јануар Садржај Догађаји Рођења Смрти Празници и дани сећања Види још Референце Мени за навигацијуу