[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080310091321.GA9452@elte.hu>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 10:13:21 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: WANG Cong <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, gvaughan@....nasa.gov, akpm@...l.org,
jeremy@...p.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix check after use in kernel/exit.c
* WANG Cong <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com> wrote:
> --- a/kernel/exit.c
> +++ b/kernel/exit.c
> @@ -583,8 +583,6 @@ static void exit_mm(struct task_struct * tsk)
> struct mm_struct *mm = tsk->mm;
>
> mm_release(tsk, mm);
> - if (!mm)
> - return;
> @@ -464,6 +464,8 @@ void mm_release(struct task_struct *tsk, struct mm_struct *mm)
> {
> struct completion *vfork_done = tsk->vfork_done;
>
> + if (!mm)
> + return;
> /* Get rid of any cached register state */
> deactivate_mm(tsk, mm);
no, this is buggy in the same way - we wont do a deactivate_mm() for
kernel threads. The check should be left alone in exit_mm(), we should
at most add a check for NULL mm to this place:
if (tsk->clear_child_tid
&& !(tsk->flags & PF_SIGNALED)
&& atomic_read(&mm->mm_users) > 1) {
but ... can mm in fact ever be NULL if tsk->clear_child_tid is set?
Ingo
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists