On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 12:42:15PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 10-04-18 12:40:47, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 11:09:17AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Tue 10-04-18 05:52:54, Yang Shi wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > So, introduce a new spinlock in mm_struct to protect the concurrent
> > > > access to arg_start|end, env_start|end and others except start_brk and
> > > > brk, which are still protected by mmap_sem to avoid concurrent access
> > > > from do_brk().
> > >
> > > Is there any fundamental problem with brk using the same lock?
> >
> > Seems so. Look into mm/mmap.c:brk syscall which reads and writes
> > brk value under mmap_sem ('cause of do_brk called inside).
>
> Why cannot we simply use the lock when the value is updated?
Because do_brk does vma manipulations, for this reason it's
running under down_write_killable(&mm->mmap_sem). Or you
mean something else?
