[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090220172526.GM6960@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 09:25:26 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com>, stable@...nel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: fix lazy vmap purging (use-after-free error)
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 06:14:27PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> > > > So, what flavor of RCU were you using?
> > >
> > > well, even in preemptible RCU the grace period should be
> > > extended as long as we are non-preempt (which we are here),
> > > correct?
> >
> > Given Classic RCU, you are quite correct. With preemptable
> > RCU, if there are no readers, and if irqs are enabled, the
> > grace period could end within the spinlock's critical section.
> > Of course, the spinlock would need to be held for an
> > improbably long time -- many milliseconds.
>
> ah. But we _can_ get unlucky there and get into
> multiple-milliseconds of blockage: for example if some heavy
> interrupt source or softirq processes stuff for many
> milliseconds.
>
> So it's a real fix needed both for mainline and for 2.6.28.
> And kudos to kmemcheck ;-)
Kudos from me as well!!! Sure beats the heck out of tracking down memory
corruption by hand!!! ;-)
Thanx, Paul
--
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