[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120209154336.GA4769@oksana.dev.rtsoft.ru>
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 19:43:37 +0400
From: Anton Vorontsov <anton.vorontsov@...aro.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...il.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Mike Frysinger <vapier@...too.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/8] arm: Fix possible race on task->mm
On Thu, Feb 09, 2012 at 07:33:46PM +0400, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 08, 2012 at 05:08:08PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 02/07, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
> > >
> > > Checking for task->mm is dangerous as ->mm might disappear (exit_mm()
> > > assigns NULL under task_lock(), so tasklist lock is not enough).
> > >
> > > We can't use get_task_mm()/mmput() pair as mmput() might sleep,
> >
> > Yes, but
> >
> > > so let's take the task lock while we care about its mm.
> >
> > it seems that this needs find_lock_task_mm() too ?
> >
> > the same for the rest patches in this series.
>
> Yep, I think you're right, will add this change.
Thinking about it more... making the code use find_lock_task_mm
would be a behaviour change. Sure, in trivial cases like ARM this
looks like a 100% safe thing to do, but in e.g. UML case, I
wouldn't bet much money on that 'mm->context.id.u.pid' would be
still meaningful.
So, I'd rather do it in a separate change, so this can be easily
reverted.
--
Anton Vorontsov
Email: cbouatmailru@...il.com
--
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