[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141007165657.GB24093@nhori.bos.redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2014 12:56:57 -0400
From: Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>
To: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Naoya Horiguchi <nao.horiguchi@...il.com>,
stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/5] mm/hugetlb: fix getting refcount 0 page in
hugetlb_fault()
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 09:52:24PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Sep 2014, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
> > When running the test which causes the race as shown in the previous patch,
> > we can hit the BUG "get_page() on refcount 0 page" in hugetlb_fault().
>
> Two minor comments...
>
> > @@ -3192,22 +3208,19 @@ int hugetlb_fault(struct mm_struct *mm, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> > * Note that locking order is always pagecache_page -> page,
> > * so no worry about deadlock.
>
> That sentence of comment is stale and should be deleted,
> now that you're only doing a trylock_page(page) here.
OK, I'll delete it.
> > out_mutex:
> > mutex_unlock(&htlb_fault_mutex_table[hash]);
> > + if (need_wait_lock)
> > + wait_on_page_locked(page);
> > return ret;
> > }
>
> It will be hard to trigger any problem from this (I guess it would
> need memory hotremove), but you ought really to hold a reference to
> page while doing a wait_on_page_locked(page).
I'll do that.
Thanks,
Naoya Horiguchi
--
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