(6/9/12 5:40 AM), David Mackey wrote: > From: Andi Kleen<ak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > From: Andi Kleen<ak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > slab_node() could access current->mempolicy from interrupt context. > However there's a race condition during exit where the mempolicy > is first freed and then the pointer zeroed. > > Using this from interrupts seems bogus anyways. The interrupt > will interrupt a random process and therefore get a random > mempolicy. Many times, this will be idle's, which noone can change. > > Just disable this here and always use local for slab > from interrupts. I also cleaned up the callers of slab_node a bit > which always passed the same argument. > > I believe the original mempolicy code did that in fact, > so it's likely a regression. > > v2: send version with correct logic > v3: simplify. fix typo. > Reported-by: Arun Sharma<asharma@xxxxxx> > Cc: penberg@xxxxxxxxxx > Cc: cl@xxxxxxxxx > Signed-off-by: Andi Kleen<ak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > [tdmackey@xxxxxxxxxxx: Rework control flow based on feedback from > cl@xxxxxxxxx, fix logic, and cleanup current task_struct reference] > Signed-off-by: David Mackey<tdmackey@xxxxxxxxxxx> Acked-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> -- 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>