[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTinwrhUOQ0LnavQY6+TQS_TqnRS0q-XXykZ8ap5G@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 08:47:34 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Cc: Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>,
Nick Bowler <nbowler@...iptictech.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] NFS: Fix a memory leak in nfs_readdir
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 8:35 AM, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> Surely somebody can have just looked up the page and
> gotten a reference count, right before your ->freepage
> call is invoked?
No.
The removal from the page cache is atomic, even in the presence of the
lockless lookup.
The page cache lookup does a "get_page_unless_zero()" on the count, so
when __remove_mapping() has removed the page using
"page_freeze_refs()", it's really gone, and cannot be looked up.
And if that is broken, then we have much more serious problems (like
aliasing the same page when doing mmap/read etc), so that's more than
just an implementation detail, it's a fundamental requirement of the
whole page-cache design.
And that's the whole point of adding this callback to the
__remove_mapping() stage: that's the _only_ point where we really end
up knowing that "yes, we really removed that page, and there are no
more users".
Linus
--
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