[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1300217432.2250.0.camel@laptop>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 20:30:32 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Stephen Wilson <wilsons@...rt.ca>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jim Keniston <jkenisto@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...k.frob.com>,
SystemTap <systemtap@...rces.redhat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2.6.38-rc8-tip 7/20] 7: uprobes: store/restore
original instruction.
On Wed, 2011-03-16 at 00:28 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
>
> mm->owner should be under rcu_read_lock, unless the task is exiting
> and mm_count is 1. mm->owner is updated under task_lock().
>
> > Also, the assignments in kernel/fork.c and kernel/exit.c don't use
> > rcu_assign_pointer() and therefore lack the needed write barrier.
> >
>
> Those are paths when the only context using the mm->owner is single
>
> > Git blames Balbir for this.
>
> I accept the blame and am willing to fix anything incorrect found in
> the code.
:-), ok sounds right, just wasn't entirely obvious when having a quick
look.
--
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