[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1104191422080.510@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 14:23:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Michal Nazarewicz <mina86@...a86.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] break out page allocation warning code
On Mon, 18 Apr 2011, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > It shouldn't be a follow-on patch since you're introducing a new feature
> > here (vmalloc allocation failure warnings) and what I'm identifying is a
> > race in the access to current->comm. A bug fix for a race should always
> > preceed a feature that touches the same code.
>
> Dude. Seriously. Glass house! a63d83f4
>
Not sure what you're implying here. The commit you've identified is the
oom killer rewrite and the oom killer is very specific about making sure
to always hold task_lock() whenever dereferencing ->comm, even for
current, to guard against /proc/pid/comm or prctl(). The oom killer is
different from your usecase, however, because we can always take
task_lock(current) in the oom killer because it's in a blockable context,
whereas page allocation warnings can occur in a superset.
--
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