On Fri, 7 Jul 2017 18:18:31 -0500 (CDT) Christoph Lameter <cl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 7 Jul 2017, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > On Fri, 7 Jul 2017 10:34:08 +0200 Alexander Potapenko <glider@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > --- a/mm/slub.c > > > +++ b/mm/slub.c > > > @@ -3389,8 +3389,8 @@ static int init_kmem_cache_nodes(struct kmem_cache *s) > > > return 0; > > > } > > > > > > - s->node[node] = n; > > > init_kmem_cache_node(n); > > > + s->node[node] = n; > > > } > > > return 1; > > > } > > > > If this matters then I have bad feelings about free_kmem_cache_nodes(): > > At creation time the kmem_cache structure is private and no one can run a > free operation. > > > Inviting a use-after-free? I guess not, as there should be no way > > to look up these items at this stage. > > Right. Still. It looks bad, and other sites do these things in the other order. > > Could the slab maintainers please take a look at these and also have a > > think about Alexander's READ_ONCE/WRITE_ONCE question? > > Was I cced on these? It's all on linux-mm. -- 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>
