On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 15:37:33 +0530
Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

quoted text
> 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 :))
> 
> CPU0					CPU1
> 					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!)

Thanks.
--
unsubscribe notice
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/