[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1008271547200.22988@router.home>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 15:56:48 -0500 (CDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: fix hang on anon_vma->root->lock
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> Nothing ensures that the root pointer was not changed after the
> ACCESS_ONCE, that's exactly why we use ACCESS_ONCE there: once we've
> got the lock and realize that what we've locked may not be what we
> wanted (or may change from what we were wanting at any moment, the
> page no longer being mapped there - but in that case we no longer want
> it), we have to be sure to unlock the one we locked, rather than the
> one which anon_vma->root might subsequently point to.
I do not see any check after we have taken the lock to verify that we
locked the correct object. Was there a second version of the patch?
> > Since there is no lock taken before the mapped check none of the
> > earlier reads from the anon vma structure nor the page mapped check
> > necessarily reflect a single state of the anon_vma.
>
> There's no lock (other than RCU's read "lock") taken before the
> original mapped check, and that's important, otherwise our attempt to
> lock might actually spinon or corrupt something that was long ago an
> anon_vma. But we do take the anon_vma->root->lock before the second
> mapped check which I added. If the page is still mapped at the point
You then are using an object from the anon_vma (the pointer) without a
lock! This is unstable therefore unless there are other constraints. The
anon_vma->lock must be taken before derefencing that pointer. The page may
have been unmapped and mapped again between the two checks. Unlikely but
possible.
> of that second check, then we know that we got the right anon_vma,
I do not see a second check (*after* taking the lock) in the patch and the
way the lock is taken can be a problem in itself.
--
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