On 04/16/2013 05:31 PM, Robin Holt wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 02:39:49PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
>> The commit 751efd8610d3 (mmu_notifier_unregister NULL Pointer deref
>> and multiple ->release()) breaks the fix:
>> 3ad3d901bbcfb15a5e4690e55350db0899095a68
>> (mm: mmu_notifier: fix freed page still mapped in secondary MMU)
>
> Can you describe how the page is still mapped? I thought I had all
> cases covered. Whichever call hits first, I thought we had one callout
> to the registered notifiers. Are you saying we need multiple callouts?
No.
You patch did this:
hlist_del_init_rcu(&mn->hlist); 1 <======
+ spin_unlock(&mm->mmu_notifier_mm->lock);
+
+ /*
+ * Clear sptes. (see 'release' description in mmu_notifier.h)
+ */
+ if (mn->ops->release)
+ mn->ops->release(mn, mm); 2 <======
+
+ spin_lock(&mm->mmu_notifier_mm->lock);
At point 1, you delete the notify, but the page is still on LRU. Other
cpu can reclaim the page but without call ->invalid_page().
At point 2, you call ->release(), the secondary MMU make page Accessed/Dirty
but that page has already been on the free-list of page-alloctor.
>
> Also, shouldn't you be asking for a revert commit and then supply a
> subsequent commit for the real fix? I thought that was the process for
> doing a revert.
Can not do that pure reversion since your patch moved hlist_for_each_entry_rcu
which has been modified now.
Should i do pure-eversion + hlist_for_each_entry_rcu update first?
--
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>