![]() | ||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2008 09:53:22 +0100
>
> * Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
>
> > > @@ -582,9 +582,9 @@ static void exit_mm(struct task_struct * tsk)
> > > {
> > > struct mm_struct *mm = tsk->mm;
> > >
> > > - mm_release(tsk, mm);
> > > if (!mm)
> > > return;
> > > + mm_release(tsk, mm);
> >
> > thanks, applied. I'm wondering why this never seems to hit in
> > practice.
>
> actually, i unapplied it again because the patch is wrong: mm_release()
> has side-effects for kernel threads such as the deactivate_mm() [which
> is important even if the user-mm is NULL]. If the NULL mm dereference
> can really trigger then it should be avoided within mm_release().
>
Do you mean that the NULL check should be moved into mm_release()?
Thanks!
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |||||||||
| Last update: 2008-03-08 10:07 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | ||||||||||