[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrUS7baKF7cdbrqX-o2qdeo1Uk=7Z4MHcxHMA3Luh+Obdw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 08:12:45 -0800
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
"J??rn Engel" <joern@...fs.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: Downgrade mmap_sem before locking or populating on mmap
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 6:49 AM, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 03:14:50AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
>> > Wait a minute. get_user_pages() relies on ->mmap_sem being held. Unless
>> > I'm seriously misreading your patch it removes that protection. And yes,
>> > I'm aware of execve-related exception; it's in special circumstances -
>> > bprm->mm is guaranteed to be not shared (and we need to rearchitect that
>> > area anyway, but that's a separate story).
>>
>> Unless I completely screwed up the patch, ->mmap_sem is still held for
>> read (it's downgraded from write). It's just not held for write
>> anymore.
>
> Huh? I'm talking about the call of get_user_pages() in aio_setup_ring().
> With your patch it's done completely outside of ->mmap_sem, isn't it?
Oh, /that/ call to get_user_pages. That would qualify as screwing up...
Since dropping and reacquiring mmap_sem there is probably a bad idea
there, I'll rework this and post a v2.
--Andy
--
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