Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 14 Sep 2004 08:06:14 -0700 (PDT) | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Subject | Re: [no patch] broken use of mm_release / deactivate_mm |
| |
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004, Nick Piggin wrote: > > > > I agree. Looks like the "exit_mm()" should really be a "mmput()". > > > > Can we have a few more eyes on this thing? Ingo, Nick? > > AFAIKS yes. exit_mm doesn't look legal unless its dropping the current > mm context. And mmput looks like it should clean up everything - it is > used almost exactly the same way to cleanup a failure case in copy_mm.
Does everybody also agree that the
if (p->active_mm) mmdrop(p->active_mm);
should also be dropped, and that mmput() does all of that correctly too?
(Again, looking at all the counts etc, I think the answer is a resounding yes, but dammit, this code has obviously never gotten any testing at all, since it effectively never happens).
Linus - 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/
| |