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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2008 21:03:24 +0530 From: Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> To: Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com> CC: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>, Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>, Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH][mmotm]memcg: handle null dereference of mm->owner Paul Menage wrote: > On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 1:40 AM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki > <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> wrote: >> BTW, I have a question to Balbir and Paul. (I'm sorry I missed the discussion.) >> Recently I wonder why we need MM_OWNER. >> >> - What's bad with thread's cgroup ? > > Because lots of mm operations take place in a context where we don't > have a thread pointer, and hence no cgroup. > Right, Thanks! Allocating memory is not that big a problem (we usually know the context), while freeing memory, we can't assume that current is freeing it -- Balbir -- 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