On Mon,  5 Aug 2013 20:09:40 +0400 Andrey Vagin <ava...@openvz.org> wrote:

> struct memcg_cache_params has a union. Different parts of this union
> are used for root and non-root caches. A part with destroying work is
> used only for non-root caches.
> 
> I fixed the same problem in another place v3.9-rc1-16204-gf101a94, but
> didn't notice this one.
> 
> Cc: <sta...@vger.kernel.org>    [3.9.x]

hm, why the cc:stable?

> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> @@ -3195,11 +3195,11 @@ int memcg_register_cache(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, 
> struct kmem_cache *s,
>       if (!s->memcg_params)
>               return -ENOMEM;
>  
> -     INIT_WORK(&s->memcg_params->destroy,
> -                     kmem_cache_destroy_work_func);
>       if (memcg) {
>               s->memcg_params->memcg = memcg;
>               s->memcg_params->root_cache = root_cache;
> +             INIT_WORK(&s->memcg_params->destroy,
> +                             kmem_cache_destroy_work_func);
>       } else
>               s->memcg_params->is_root_cache = true;

So the bug here is that we'll scribble on some entries in
memcg_caches[].  Those scribbles may or may not be within the part of
that array which is actually used.  If there's code which expects
memcg_caches[] entries to be zeroed at initialisation then yes, we have
a problem.

But I rather doubt whether this bug was causing runtime problems?


Presently memcg_register_cache() allocates too much memory for the
memcg_caches[] array.  If that was fixed then this INIT_WORK() might
scribble into unknown memory, which is of course serious.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Reply via email to