lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Jan]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH 6/8] mm: handle_speculative_fault()


On Tue, 5 Jan 2010, Minchan Kim wrote:
>
> Isn't it protected by get_file and iget?

When the vma is mapped, yes.

> Am I miss something?

remove_vma() will have done a

fput(vma->vm_file);

and other house-keeping (removing the executable info, doing
vm_ops->close() etc).

And that is _not_ done delayed by RCU, and as outlined in my previous
email I think that if the code really _does_ delay it, then munmap() (and
exit) need to wait for the RCU callbacks to have been done, because
otherwise the file may end up being busy "asynchronously" in ways that
break existing semantics.

Just as an example: imagine a script that does "fork()+execve()" on a
temporary file, and then after waiting for it all to finish with wait4()
does some re-write of the file. It currently works. But what if the
open-for-writing gets ETXTBUSY because the file is still marked as being
VM_DENYWRITE, and RCU hasn't done all the callbacks?

Or if you do the i_writecount handling synchronously (which is likely fine
- it really is just for ETXTBUSY handling, and I don't think speculative
page faults matter), what about a shutdown sequence (or whatever) that
wants to unmount the filesystem, but the file is still open - as it has to
be - because the actual close is delayed by RCU.

So the patch-series as-is is fundamentally buggy - and trying to fix it
seems painful.

I'm also not entirely clear on how the race with page table tear-down vs
page-fault got handled, but I didn't read the whole patch-series very
carefully. I skimmed through it and got rather nervous about it all. It
doesn't seem too large, but it _does_ seem rather cavalier about all the
object lifetimes.

Linus


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-01-05 05:51    [W:0.127 / U:1.244 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site