On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 03:01:46PM +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> There is a race window between vmap_area free and show vmap_area information.
> 
>       A                                                B
> 
> remove_vm_area
> spin_lock(&vmap_area_lock);
> va->flags &= ~VM_VM_AREA;
> spin_unlock(&vmap_area_lock);
>                                               spin_lock(&vmap_area_lock);
>                                               if (va->flags & (VM_LAZY_FREE | 
> VM_LAZY_FREEZING))
>                                                       return 0;
>                                               if (!(va->flags & VM_VM_AREA)) {
>                                                       seq_printf(m, 
> "0x%pK-0x%pK %7ld vm_map_ram\n",
>                                                               (void 
> *)va->va_start, (void *)va->va_end,
>                                                               va->va_end - 
> va->va_start);
>                                                       return 0;
>                                               }
> free_unmap_vmap_area(va);
>       flush_cache_vunmap
>       free_unmap_vmap_area_noflush
>               unmap_vmap_area
>               free_vmap_area_noflush
>                       va->flags |= VM_LAZY_FREE 
> 
> The assumption is introduced by commit: d4033afd(mm, vmalloc: iterate 
> vmap_area_list, 
> instead of vmlist, in vmallocinfo()). This patch fix it by drop the 
> assumption and 
> keep not dump vm_map_ram allocation information as the logic before that 
> commit.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Wanpeng Li <liw...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
>  mm/vmalloc.c | 7 -------
>  1 file changed, 7 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c
> index 5368b17..62b7932 100644
> --- a/mm/vmalloc.c
> +++ b/mm/vmalloc.c
> @@ -2586,13 +2586,6 @@ static int s_show(struct seq_file *m, void *p)
>       if (va->flags & (VM_LAZY_FREE | VM_LAZY_FREEING))
>               return 0;
>  
> -     if (!(va->flags & VM_VM_AREA)) {
> -             seq_printf(m, "0x%pK-0x%pK %7ld vm_map_ram\n",
> -                     (void *)va->va_start, (void *)va->va_end,
> -                                     va->va_end - va->va_start);
> -             return 0;
> -     }
> -
>       v = va->vm;
>  
>       seq_printf(m, "0x%pK-0x%pK %7ld",

Hello, Wanpeng.

Did you test this patch?

I guess that, With this patch, if there are some vm_map areas,
null pointer deference would occurs, since va->vm may be null for it.

And with this patch, if this race really occur, null pointer deference
would occurs too, since va->vm is set to null in remove_vm_area().

I think that this is not a right fix for this possible race.

Thanks.
--
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