Re: [PATCH 5/5] mempolicy: fix a memory corruption by refcount imbalance in alloc_pages_vma()
From: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
Date: 2012-12-05 06:28:39
Also in:
lkml
On Tue, 4 Dec 2012, Hugh Dickins wrote:
Yes, your patch fixes it Mel, but I prefer it as below, with a couple of mods: removing the no longer true comment, and leaving shmem_swapin() alone with just a comment. It appears to be the job of the rather weird mpol_cond_copy() to drop the reference on the original mempolicy, and clear MPOL_F_SHARED so the copy won't need one (it's trying to cope with the fact that swapin_readahead will make an unknown number of calls to alloc_page_vma). So I'd rather not add another mpol_cond_put there, whose cond will never be met.
Hold on, ignore that patch for now, I think I had my priorities upside down: it would be better for shmem_swapin() to behave as you proposed, and we delete the mpol_cond_copy() weirdness instead. Your 00442ad04a5e changed alloc_pages_vma() to keep its refcounting in balance, so it now does not matter that swapin_readahead() makes an unknown number of calls to it: we should simply take a reference before and drop it after, just as you do in shmem_alloc_page(). I'd still like to revisit alloc_page_vma(), and its refcount manipulations do now appear redundant; but changing that is not something I want to get into in a last minute rush. But getting rid of mpol_cond_copy() should be safe and clear, I'll test that out now and reply with an updated patch (or else admit I got confused). Hugh -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>