[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YbDIxA92ln+RTbUK@casper.infradead.org>
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2021 15:01:24 +0000
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mhocko@...nel.org, mhocko@...e.com,
rientjes@...gle.com, hannes@...xchg.org, guro@...com,
riel@...riel.com, minchan@...nel.org, kirill@...temov.name,
aarcange@...hat.com, christian@...uner.io, hch@...radead.org,
oleg@...hat.com, david@...hat.com, jannh@...gle.com,
shakeelb@...gle.com, luto@...nel.org, christian.brauner@...ntu.com,
fweimer@...hat.com, jengelh@...i.de, timmurray@...gle.com,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] mm: protect free_pgtables with mmap_lock write
lock in exit_mmap
On Tue, Dec 07, 2021 at 03:08:19PM -0800, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > > /**
> > > * @close: Called when the VMA is being removed from the MM.
> > > * Context: Caller holds mmap_lock.
>
> BTW, is the caller always required to hold mmap_lock for write or it
> *might* hold it?
__do_munmap() might hold it for read, thanks to:
if (downgrade)
mmap_write_downgrade(mm);
Should probably say:
* Context: User context. May sleep. Caller holds mmap_lock.
I don't think we should burden the implementor of the vm_ops with the
knowledge that the VM chooses to not hold the mmap_lock under certain
circumstances when it doesn't matter whether it's holding the mmap_lock
or not.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists