[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1105101619430.4023@router.home>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 16:22:05 -0500 (CDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
cc: Vegard Nossum <vegardno@....uio.no>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
casteyde.christian@...e.fr,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, bugzilla-daemon@...zilla.kernel.org,
bugme-daemon@...zilla.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Bugme-new] [Bug 33502] New: Caught 64-bit read from uninitialized
memory in __alloc_skb
On Tue, 10 May 2011, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > No the other cpu cannot free the page since the page is pinned by
> > the current cpu (see PageFrozen()).
> >
>
> What happens then ? Other cpu calls kfree() on last nonfreed object for
> this slab, and yet the page stay frozen ? How this page is going to be
> freed at all ?
Yes the page stays frozen. The freed objects are used to replenish the
percpu free list when it becomes empty.
The page is going to be freed when a kmalloc() finds that the per cpu
freelist is empty and that the freelist of the page is also empty. Then
interrupts are disabled, the old page is unfrozen and a new
page is acquired for allocation.
> > > Maybe I am just tired tonight, this seems very obvious, I must miss
> > > something.
> >
> > Yeah you are way off thinking about cpu to cpu concurrency issues that do
> > not apply here.
>
> I fail to understand how current cpu can assert page ownership, if IRQs
> are enabled, this seems obvious it cannot.
The cpu sets a page flag called PageFrozen() and points a per cpu pointer
to the page.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists