[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <af8f7958-06aa-7134-c750-b7a994368e89@virtuozzo.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2019 11:55:45 +0300
From: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>
To: Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>,
gorcunov@...il.com
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, arunks@...eaurora.org, brgl@...ev.pl,
geert+renesas@...der.be, ldufour@...ux.ibm.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
mguzik@...hat.com, mhocko@...nel.org, rppt@...ux.ibm.com,
vbabka@...e.cz
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] prctl_set_mm: downgrade mmap_sem to read lock
On 30.04.2019 11:18, Michal Koutný wrote:
> Since commit 88aa7cc688d4 ("mm: introduce arg_lock to protect
> arg_start|end and env_start|end in mm_struct") we use arg_lock for
> boundaries modifications. Synchronize prctl_set_mm with this lock and
> keep mmap_sem for reading only (analogous to what we already do in
> prctl_set_mm_map).
>
> v2: call find_vma without arg_lock held
>
> CC: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
> CC: Laurent Dufour <ldufour@...ux.ibm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>
> ---
> kernel/sys.c | 10 ++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sys.c b/kernel/sys.c
> index e1acb444d7b0..641fda756575 100644
> --- a/kernel/sys.c
> +++ b/kernel/sys.c
> @@ -2123,9 +2123,14 @@ static int prctl_set_mm(int opt, unsigned long addr,
>
> error = -EINVAL;
>
> - down_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
> + /*
> + * arg_lock protects concurent updates of arg boundaries, we need mmap_sem for
> + * a) concurrent sys_brk, b) finding VMA for addr validation.
> + */
> + down_read(&mm->mmap_sem);
> vma = find_vma(mm, addr);
>
> + spin_lock(&mm->arg_lock);
> prctl_map.start_code = mm->start_code;
> prctl_map.end_code = mm->end_code;
> prctl_map.start_data = mm->start_data;
> @@ -2213,7 +2218,8 @@ static int prctl_set_mm(int opt, unsigned long addr,
>
> error = 0;
> out:
> - up_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
> + spin_unlock(&mm->arg_lock);
> + up_read(&mm->mmap_sem);
> return error;
Hm, shouldn't spin_lock()/spin_unlock() pair go as a fixup to existing code
in a separate patch?
Without them, the existing code has a problem at least in get_mm_cmdline().
Powered by blists - more mailing lists