lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [May]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Race between vmtruncate and mapped areas?

--On Wednesday, May 14, 2003 10:57:06 -0700 Andrew Morton <akpm@digeo.com>
wrote:

> yes. It's a very complex way of allocating anonymous memory.

Yep. And randomly, at that.

> I am told that Stephen, Linus and others discussed this at length at KS a
> couple of years ago and the upshot was that the application is racy anyway
> and there's nothing wrong with it.
>
> Hugh calls these "Morton pages" but it wasn't me and nobody saw me do it.
>
> It would be nice to make them go away - they cause problems.

Definitely. We almost have the pieces necessary to detect it and/or
prevent it, but the info isn't in quite the right layer at the right time.
If it weren't for the lock order problem with mmap_sem we could have nailed
it that way. Sigh.

Dave

======================================================================
Dave McCracken IBM Linux Base Kernel Team 1-512-838-3059
dmccr@us.ibm.com T/L 678-3059

-
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: 2005-03-22 13:35    [W:0.097 / U:0.016 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site