On Mon, 03 Mar 2014 18:42:33 -0800 Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@xxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-03-03 at 17:23 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Mon, 03 Mar 2014 16:59:38 -0800 Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@xxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > > >...
> > > > >
> > > > > +static bool vmacache_valid(struct mm_struct *mm)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + struct task_struct *curr = current;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + if (mm != curr->mm)
> > > > > + return false;
> > > >
> > > > What's going on here? Handling a task poking around in someone else's
> > > > mm? I'm thinking "__access_remote_vm", but I don't know what you were
> > > > thinking ;) An explanatory comment would be revealing.
> > >
> > > I don't understand the doubt here. Seems like a pretty obvious thing to
> > > check -- yes it's probably unlikely but we certainly don't want to be
> > > validating the cache on an mm that's not ours... or are you saying it's
> > > redundant??
> >
> > Well it has to be here for a reason and I'm wondering that that reason
> > is. If nobody comes here with a foreign mm then let's remove it.
>
> find_vma() can be called by concurrent threads sharing the mm->mmap_sem
> for reading, thus this check needs to be there.
Confused. If the threads share mm->mmap_sem then they share mm and the
test will always be false?
--
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>