lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Jun]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Question about do_mmap changes
On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 07:56:38AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> _IF_ this is done not to current->mm, these guys are in for a world of
> hurt, probably going all way back.

BTW, rtR0MemObjLinuxDoMmap() would really better be done with
pTask == current; it calls do_mmap(), which acts on current->mm and
nowhere in the function does it look at pTask at all. The caller
has locked pTask->mm->mmap_sem. And do_mmap() obviously assumes that
current->mm->mmap_sem is held by caller.

Looking at the callers (both of that an munmap()), it appears
that they get task from
static struct task_struct *rtR0ProcessToLinuxTask(RTR0PROCESS R0Process)
{
/** @todo fix rtR0ProcessToLinuxTask!! */
return R0Process == RTR0ProcHandleSelf() ? current : NULL;
}

So it's probably OK, until they follow up on that todo. BTW, quite a few
callers of that sucker are followed by Assert(pTask != NULL)...

Most of do_munmap() callers are easily converted to vm_munmap(); the only
exception is cleanup after failure in rtR0MemObjNativeMapUser(). May
or may not be convertable to vm_munmap(); depends on whether they really
need ->mmap_sem held over the entire sequence *and* on whether there's
a better solution. They seem to be trying to shove an array of pages
into VMA they'd just created and lock them there; I might be misreading
and missing details, though - that code is really as pleasant to read
as using warm stale beer to deal with industrial-strength hangover. The
kind when you end up spitting out a fly or two, if not a cigarette butt...
I'm not up to that right now - it's half past three in the morning here
and I'll have to get up four hours from now ;-/


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-06-04 10:01    [W:0.045 / U:0.596 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site