[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090205172303.GB8559@sgi.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 11:23:03 -0600
From: Robin Holt <holt@....com>
To: linux-mm@...ck.org, Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@...ranet.com>
Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [Patch] mmu_notifiers destroyed by __mmu_notifier_release() retain
extra mm_count.
An application relying upon mmu_notifier_release for teardown of the
mmu_notifiers will leak mm_structs. At the do_mmu_notifier_register
increments mm_count, but __mmu_notifier_release() does not decrement it.
Signed-off-by: Robin Holt <holt@....com>
CC: Stable kernel maintainers <stable@...r.kernel.org>
---
I detected this while running a 2.6.27 kernel. Could this get added to
the stable trees when accepted as well? It does cause a denial of
service with OOM.
mm/mmu_notifier.c | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
Index: linux-2.6.27/mm/mmu_notifier.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.27.orig/mm/mmu_notifier.c 2008-10-09 17:13:53.000000000 -0500
+++ linux-2.6.27/mm/mmu_notifier.c 2009-02-05 10:55:07.076561592 -0600
@@ -61,6 +61,7 @@ void __mmu_notifier_release(struct mm_st
if (mn->ops->release)
mn->ops->release(mn, mm);
rcu_read_unlock();
+ mmdrop(mm); /* matches do_mmu_notifier_register's inc */
spin_lock(&mm->mmu_notifier_mm->lock);
}
spin_unlock(&mm->mmu_notifier_mm->lock);
--
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