Off-by-one issue with NOCACHE_MAX_FDS about nocache

[Feh]

Sorry for the delay. I’ve taken another look. Recapping, we have the array

    fds_lock = malloc(max_fds * sizeof(*fds_lock));

and the companion

    fds = malloc(max_fds * sizeof(*fds));

For both these arrays, we must maintain that the array index is between 0 and max_fds - 1, inclusive. In the case of a loop like for(i=0; i<max_fds; i++) we’re good as you mention, so what’s left is inspect all other call sites where we don’t iterate.

1. Here onwards in store_pageinfo().
2. Here onwards in free_unclaimed_pages().

In both cases, the functions have an if(fd >= ...) block at the top. Because we must have fd < max_fds, we should return when fd >= max_fds. The check in free_unclaimed_pages() here is already correct, and your patch is simply changing the check to be correct in the store_pageinfo() case.

Again, sorry about the delay, and thanks for contributing! Merging your change.

[pavlinux]

Are you sure that setlimit works?

$ env NOCACHE_MAX_FDS=1 nocache ./a.out;
soft limit= 16384 hard limit= 16384
soft limit= 100 hard limit= 1024

getrlim.txt

[shadjiiski]

@pavlinux as far as I understand you were left with the impression that the resource limits for the child process would be amended by setting NOCACHE_MAX_FDS.My understanding is that NOCACHE_MAX_FDS only controls the number of file descriptors that nocache would posix_fadvise on (the lesser between that env var and the current RLIMIT_NOFILE hard limit will be used). It would not change resource limits neither for itself nor for the child process. (see here)

[Feh]

Stanislav, thanks for digging into this. I think in the default settings it doesn’t matter if the value is 2^20 or 2^20-1, but after re-reading man getrlimit I agree with you that it would be better if the max fd number follows the same semantics as the RLIMIT_NOFILE limit (i.e. not count FDs, but instead denote an exclusive upper bound on the FD number).

However, I belive your pull request introduces the possiblity of an out-of-bounds array access: fds is initialized with max_fds elements, which means it can store a FD with number 0..max_fds-1. Your pull request changes the semantics bound, but doesn’t grow the memory allocation by 1 (here). Can you amend the PR if you agree?

[shadjiiski]

Julius, I am not entirely sure about this. The man page reads that the RLIMIT_NOFILE is a value one greater than the maximum file descriptor number that can be opened by the process. Since I believe file descriptors are zero-based, this would mean that it matches the number of supported file descriptors. With this in mind, the current referenced allocation

fds_lock = malloc(max_fds * sizeof(*fds_lock));

makes sense to me - it would support a number of locks matching the number of file descriptors. Furthermore, I believe the fds_lock is always accessed in a fashion similar to this:

for(i = 0; i < max_fds; i++) 

so I am not sure I see where the out of bounds access may happen. However, I am not that used to C so I may be missing a key point, please follow up.

[Feh]

Merged #43