On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 01:04:33PM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-05-24 at 19:13 +0300, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> > On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 05:59:02AM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > ...
> > > > +static int anon_pipe_buf_steal(struct pipe_inode_info *pipe,
> > > > + struct pipe_buffer *buf)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct page *page = buf->page;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (page_count(page) == 1) {
> > >
> > > This looks racy : some cpu could have temporarily elevated page count.
> >
> > All pipe operations (pipe_buf_operations->get, ->release, ->steal) are
> > supposed to be called under pipe_lock. So, if we see a pipe_buffer->page
> > with refcount of 1 in ->steal, that means that we are the only its user
> > and it can't be spliced to another pipe.
> >
> > In fact, I just copied the code from generic_pipe_buf_steal, adding
> > kmemcg related checks along the way, so it should be fine.
>
> So you guarantee that no other cpu might have done
> get_page_unless_zero() right before this test ?
Each pipe_buffer holds a reference to its page. If we find page's
refcount to be 1 here, then it can be referenced only by our
pipe_buffer. And the refcount cannot be increased by a parallel thread,
because we hold pipe_lock, which rules out splice, and otherwise it's
impossible to reach the page as it is not on lru. That said, I think I
guarantee that this should be safe.
Thanks,
Vladimir
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>