[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aday6dpmfbw.fsf@roland-alpha.cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2010 20:58:27 -0700
From: Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>
To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: kmem_cache_destroy() badness with SLUB
Hi folks !
Internally, I'm hitting a little "nit"...
sysfs_slab_add() has this check:
if (slab_state < SYSFS)
/* Defer until later */
return 0;
But sysfs_slab_remove() doesn't.
So if the slab is created -and- destroyed at, for example, arch_initcall
time, then we hit a WARN in the kobject code, trying to dispose of a
non-existing kobject.
Now, at first sight, just adding the same test to sysfs_slab_remove()
would do the job... but it all seems very racy to me.
I don't understand in fact how this slab_state deals with races at all.
What prevents us from hitting slab_sysfs_init() at the same time as
another CPU deos sysfs_slab_add() ? How do that deal with collisions
trying to register the same kobject twice ? Similar race with remove...
Shouldn't we have a mutex around those guys ?
Cheers,
Ben.
--
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/
--
Roland Dreier <rolandd@...co.com> || For corporate legal information go to:
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html
--
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