* Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2011-09-20 18:03:10]:
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 05:30:40PM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > +static void build_probe_list(struct inode *inode, struct list_head *head)
> > +{
> > + struct uprobe *uprobe;
> > + struct rb_node *n;
> > + unsigned long flags;
> > +
> > + n = uprobes_tree.rb_node;
> > + spin_lock_irqsave(&uprobes_treelock, flags);
>
> Not sure whether grabbing root.rb_node outside the spinlock is safe? If
> the tree is rotated on another CPU you could catch and out-of-date node?
Agree that its better to access the node in the spinlock.
Shall correct this.
> > +static void dec_mm_uprobes_count(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> > + struct inode *inode)
> > +{
> > + struct uprobe *uprobe;
> > + struct rb_node *n;
> > + unsigned long flags;
> > +
> > + n = uprobes_tree.rb_node;
> > + spin_lock_irqsave(&uprobes_treelock, flags);
>
> Same here.
Okay.
--
Thanks and Regards
Srikar
--
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/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>