[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20150324150054.a9050b7814860790e1d9b0d0@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 15:00:54 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Roman Pen <r.peniaev@...il.com>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
WANG Chao <chaowang@...hat.com>,
Fabian Frederick <fabf@...net.be>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>, Gioh Kim <gioh.kim@....com>,
Rob Jones <rob.jones@...ethink.co.uk>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 1/3] mm/vmalloc: fix possible exhaustion of vmalloc
space caused by vm_map_ram allocator
On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 23:04:39 +0900 Roman Pen <r.peniaev@...il.com> wrote:
> If suitable block can't be found, new block is allocated and put into a head
> of a free list, so on next iteration this new block will be found first.
>
> ...
>
> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
>
> ...
>
> --- a/mm/vmalloc.c
> +++ b/mm/vmalloc.c
> @@ -837,7 +837,7 @@ static struct vmap_block *new_vmap_block(gfp_t gfp_mask)
>
> vbq = &get_cpu_var(vmap_block_queue);
> spin_lock(&vbq->lock);
> - list_add_rcu(&vb->free_list, &vbq->free);
> + list_add_tail_rcu(&vb->free_list, &vbq->free);
> spin_unlock(&vbq->lock);
> put_cpu_var(vmap_block_queue);
>
I'm not sure about the cc:stable here. There is potential for
unexpected side-effects and I don't *think* people are hurting from
this issue in real life. Or maybe I'm wrong about that?
--
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