Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> I suppose this simpler patch has the same effect (also untested).
>
> if (flags & ~(unsigned long)(MPOL_F_NODE|MPOL_F_ADDR))
> return -EINVAL;
>@@ -502,6 +502,10 @@
> pol = vma->vm_ops->get_policy(vma, addr);
> else
> pol = vma->vm_policy;
>+ pol2 = mpol_copy(pol);
>+ up_read(&mm->mmap_sem);
>+ if (IS_ERR(pol2))
>+ return PTR_ERR(pol2);
>
I don't think so. With MPOL_F_ADDR|MPOL_F_NODE sys_get_mempolicy
calls lookup_node()->get_user_pages() few lines below, so we can't
up_read(&mm->mmap_sem) here.
> It's hard to figure out what your patch actually does because
> of all the gratious white space changes.
For your convenience here is the code with the patch applied.
if (flags & MPOL_F_ADDR) {
struct mm_struct *mm = current->mm;
struct vm_area_struct *vma;
err = 0;
down_read(&mm->mmap_sem);
vma = find_vma_intersection(mm, addr, addr+1);
if (!vma)
err = -EFAULT;
else {
if (vma->vm_ops && vma->vm_ops->get_policy)
pol = vma->vm_ops->get_policy(vma, addr);
else
pol = vma->vm_policy;
if (flags & MPOL_F_NODE) {
pval = lookup_node(mm, addr);
if (pval < 0)
err = pval;
}
}
up_read(&mm->mmap_sem);
if (err)
goto out;
} else if (addr)
return -EINVAL;
if (!pol)
pol = &default_policy;
if (flags & MPOL_F_NODE) {
if (!(flags & MPOL_F_ADDR)) {
if (pol == current->mempolicy &&
pol->policy == MPOL_INTERLEAVE) {
pval = current->il_next;
} else {
err = -EINVAL;
goto out;
}
}
} else
pval = pol->policy;
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
