[lkml]   [2008]   [Aug]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [-mm][PATCH 1/2] mm owner fix race between swap and exit
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 15:37:33 +0530
Balbir Singh <> wrote:

> There's a race between mm->owner assignment and try_to_unuse(). The condition
> occurs when try_to_unuse() runs in parallel with an exiting task.
> The race can be visualized below. To quote Hugh
> "I don't think your careful alternation of CPU0/1 events at the end matters:
> the swapoff CPU simply dereferences mm->owner after that task has gone"
> But the alteration does help understand the race better (at-least for me :))
> try_to_unuse
> task 1 stars exiting look at mm = task1->mm
> .. increment mm_users
> task 1 exits
> mm->owner needs to be updated, but
> no new owner is found
> (mm_users > 1, but no other task
> has task->mm = task1->mm)
> mm_update_next_owner() leaves
> grace period
> user count drops, call mmput(mm)
> task 1 freed
> dereferencing mm->owner fails
> The fix is to notify the subsystem (via mm_owner_changed callback), if
> no new owner is found by specifying the new task as NULL.

This patch applies to mainline, 2.6.27-rc2 and even 2.6.26.

Against which kernel/patch is it actually applicable?

(If the answer was "all of the above" then please don't go embedding
mainline bugfixes in the middle of a -mm-only patch series!)


 \ /
  Last update: 2008-08-12 02:35    [W:0.105 / U:4.384 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site