[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100615111337.GK6138@laptop>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 21:13:37 +1000
From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/12] vmscan: Write out dirty pages in batch
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 06:53:41AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > + /*
> > + * XXX: This is the Holy Hand Grenade of PotentiallyInvalidMapping. As
> > + * the page lock has been dropped by ->writepage, that mapping could
> > + * be anything
> > + */
>
> Why is this an XXX comment?
It's just a pretty simple use-after-free. Maybe people forget it because
->writepage is an asynchronous API.
> > + *
> > + * XXX: Is there a problem with holding multiple page locks like this?
>
> I think there is. There's quite a few places that do hold multiple
> pages locked, but they always lock pages in increasing page->inxex order.
> Given that this locks basically in random order it could cause problems
> for those places.
There shouldn't be a problem _holding_ the locks, but there is a problem
waiting for multiple locks out of page->index order.
But there is a problem with holding the lock of a lot of pages while
calling ->writepage on them. So yeah, you can't do that.
Hmm, I should rediff that lockdep page_lock patch and get it merged.
(although I don't know if that can catch these all these problems easily)
--
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