lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Feb]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] mm: fix lazy vmap purging (use-after-free error)
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 10:27:44AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 10:07:35 +0100 Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
> >
> > > > ---
> > > >
> > > > init/main.c | 3 +++
> > > > kernel/rcuclassic.c | 4 +++-
> > > > kernel/rcutree.c | 4 +++-
> > > > 3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/init/main.c b/init/main.c
> > > > index 8442094..51f4b71 100644
> > > > --- a/init/main.c
> > > > +++ b/init/main.c
> > > > @@ -121,6 +121,8 @@ static char *static_command_line;
> > > > static char *execute_command;
> > > > static char *ramdisk_execute_command;
> > > >
> > > > +int idle_task_is_really_idle; /* set to 1 late in boot. */
> > > > +
> > > > #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> > > > /* Setup configured maximum number of CPUs to activate */
> > > > unsigned int __initdata setup_max_cpus = NR_CPUS;
> > > > @@ -463,6 +465,7 @@ static noinline void __init_refok rest_init(void)
> > > > * at least once to get things moving:
> > > > */
> > > > init_idle_bootup_task(current);
> > > > + idle_task_is_really_idle = 1;
> > > > preempt_enable_no_resched();
> > > > schedule();
> > > > preempt_disable();
> > >
> > > Could you please use system_state instead? We could insert a new
> > > stage - or just use SYSTEM_RUNNING as the trigger.
> >
> > I think the standalone flag is better (once those
> > extern-decls-in-C get fixed).
> >
> > system_state's semantics have, err, evolved over time. If
> > this happens again (and the patch sneaks past my attention)
> > then there's a risk that code which depends upon system_state
> > will break - this has happened in the past. Plus piling more
> > dependencies on system_state of course makes any evolution of
> > its semantics harder to do...
>
> All we need is a SYSTEM_BOOTING_EARLY boundary - prior which
> there's no real scheduling yet. I used SYSTEM_SCHEDULER_BOOTING
> state before and it worked well and wasnt fragile.
>
> Our system_state semantics problems were more rooted in the fact
> that the SYSTEM_BOOTING stage wasnt well defined. But if we did
> a SYSTEM_SCHEDULER_BOOTING stage that would be pretty
> bit-rot-safe.

Actually, I should be able to simply use (system_state != SYSTEM_BOOTING),
because the system state transitions to SYSTEM_RUNNING at essentially
the same place that I set my new global variable. Especially given that
this approach saves others from any bad guesses I might make about the
existing uses of SYSTEM_BOOTING. ;-)

I will also credit kmemcheck on the resulting patch.

Thanx, Paul


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-02-23 18:05    [W:0.974 / U:0.012 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site