On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 03:20:01PM +0200, Pekka Enberg wrote: > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Paul E. McKenney > <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > In contrast, from kfree() to a kmalloc() returning some of the kfree()ed > > memory, I believe the kfree()/kmalloc() implementation must do any needed > > synchronization and ordering. But that is a different set of examples, > > for example, this one: > > > > CPU 0 CPU 1 > > p->a = 42; q = kmalloc(...); /* returning p */ > > kfree(p); q->a = 5; > > BUG_ON(q->a != 5); > > > > Unlike the situation with (A), (B), and (C), in this case I believe > > that it is kfree()'s and kmalloc()'s responsibility to ensure that > > the BUG_ON() never triggers. > > > > Make sense? > > I'm not sure... > > It's the caller's responsibility not to touch "p" after it's handed over to > kfree() - otherwise that's a "use-after-free" error. If there's some reordering > going on here, I'm tempted to blame the caller for lack of locking. But if the two callers are unrelated, what locking can they possibly use? >From what I can see, the current implementation prevents the above BUG_ON() from firing. If the two CPUs are the same, the CPU will see its own accesses in order, while if they are different, the implementation will have had to push the memory through non-CPU-local data structures, which must have had some heavyweight protection. Thanx, Paul -- 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>