[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150701154743.GB14934@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 17:47:43 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...ck.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>,
Kirill Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] mremap: don't do mm_populate(new_addr) on failure
On 06/30, David Rientjes wrote:
>
> On Sat, 20 Jun 2015, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> > --- a/mm/mremap.c
> > +++ b/mm/mremap.c
> > @@ -574,8 +574,10 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE5(mremap, unsigned long, addr, unsigned long, old_len,
> > ret = move_vma(vma, addr, old_len, new_len, new_addr, &locked);
> > }
> > out:
> > - if (ret & ~PAGE_MASK)
> > + if (ret & ~PAGE_MASK) {
> > vm_unacct_memory(charged);
> > + locked = 0;
> > + }
> > up_write(¤t->mm->mmap_sem);
> > if (locked && new_len > old_len)
> > mm_populate(new_addr + old_len, new_len - old_len);
>
> Perhaps I'm looking at the wrong tree (next-20150630), but why does
> setting locked to 0 here matter if it's unreferenced?
See the "if (locked && ...)" check before mm_populate(). We should
not do this if move_vma() fails.
Oleg.
--
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