Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Wed, 5 Mar 2008 07:48:14 +0100 | | From | Ingo Molnar <> | | Subject | Re: preempt bug in set_pmd_pfn? |
* Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org> wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> * Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I think set_pmd_pfn, which is only called by __set_fixmap, might have a
>>> preempt bug in it.
>>>
>>
>> yes, and we had similar preemption bugs in the past. I guess most places
>> are either infrequent or have some natural atomicity anyway. Wanna send a
>> patch?
>
> Sure. Should it just disable preemption, or take a lock? It calls
> set_pte_at without holding any pte locks; that seems to be relatively
> common. Is it OK when you're operating on init_mm?
no, it's not OK to modify the kernel pagetable without locking - taking
the pgd_lock should do the trick. Could you send the stacktrace that
shows the place that is preemptible?
Ingo
|  |