[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170117013300.GA25940@js1304-P5Q-DELUXE>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 10:33:00 +0900
From: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
To: Kyunghwan Kwon <kwon@...nyone.net>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] slab: add a check for the first kmem_cache not to be
destroyed
On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 04:04:59PM +0900, Kyunghwan Kwon wrote:
> The first kmem_cache created at booting up is supposed neither mergeable
> nor destroyable but was possible to destroy. So prevent it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kyunghwan Kwon <kwon@...nyone.net>
> ---
> mm/slab_common.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/slab_common.c b/mm/slab_common.c
> index 1dfc209..2d30ace 100644
> --- a/mm/slab_common.c
> +++ b/mm/slab_common.c
> @@ -744,7 +744,7 @@ void kmem_cache_destroy(struct kmem_cache *s)
> bool need_rcu_barrier = false;
> int err;
>
> - if (unlikely(!s))
> + if (unlikely(!s) || s->refcount == -1)
> return;
Hello, Kyunghwan.
Few lines below, s->refcount is checked.
if (s->refcount)
goto unlock;
Am I missing something?
Thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists