linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: fix page_lock_anon

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 28 May 2011 16:24:42 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: fix page_lock_anon_vma leaving mutex locked

On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> But I'm replying before I've given it enough thought,
> mainly to let you know that I am back on it now.

So I applied your other two patches as obvious, but not this one.

I'm wondering - wouldn't it be nicer to just re-check (after getting
the anon_vma lock) that page->mapping still matches anon_mapping?

That said, I do agree with the "anon_vma_root" part of your patch. I
just think you mixed up two independent issues with it: the fact that
we may be unlocking a new root, and the precise check used to
determine whether the anon_vma might have changed.

So my gut feeling is that we should do the "anon_vma" root thing
independently as a fix for the "maybe anon_vma->root changed" issue,
and then as a separate patch decide on how to check whether anon_vma
is still valid.

Hmm?

                   Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/