On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 4:05 AM Lorenzo Stoakes
<lorenzo.stoakes@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 08:25:52PM -0800, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > When exit_mmap() removes vmas belonging to an exiting task, it does not
> > mark them as detached since they can't be reached by other tasks and they
> > will be freed shortly. Once we introduce vma reuse, all vmas will have to
> > be in detached state before they are freed to ensure vma when reused is
> > in a consistent state. Add missing vma_mark_detached() before freeing the
> > vma.
>
> Hmm this really makes me worry that we'll see bugs from this detached
> stuff, do we make this assumption anywhere else I wonder?
This is the only place which does not currently detach the vma before
freeing it. If someone tries adding a case like that in the future,
they will be met with vma_assert_detached() inside vm_area_free().
>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Reviewed-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx>
>
> But regardless, prima facie, this looks fine, so:
>
> Reviewed-by: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> > ---
> > mm/vma.c | 6 ++++--
> > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/vma.c b/mm/vma.c
> > index b9cf552e120c..93ff42ac2002 100644
> > --- a/mm/vma.c
> > +++ b/mm/vma.c
> > @@ -413,10 +413,12 @@ void remove_vma(struct vm_area_struct *vma, bool unreachable)
> > if (vma->vm_file)
> > fput(vma->vm_file);
> > mpol_put(vma_policy(vma));
> > - if (unreachable)
> > + if (unreachable) {
> > + vma_mark_detached(vma);
> > __vm_area_free(vma);
> > - else
> > + } else {
> > vm_area_free(vma);
> > + }
> > }
> >
> > /*
> > --
> > 2.47.1.613.gc27f4b7a9f-goog
> >
