On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 05:51:07PM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > Hello. > > sys_get_mempolicy() accesses user memory with mmap_sem held. > If I understand correctly, this can cause deadlock: > > sys_get_mempolicy: Another thread, same mm: > > down_read(mmap_sem); > down_write(mmap_sem); > put_user(); > do_page_fault: > down_read(mmap_sem);
Hrm. Normal Linux policy seems to ignore this potential and rare deadlock and using nesting safely (e.g. it's been known for a long time for the tasklist rw spinlock, but nobody really cares and it doesn't seem to be hit by users). Do you really think it is likely to happen? > > Compile tested only, I have no NUMA machine. It's hard to figure out what your patch actually does because of all the gratious white space changes. I suppose this simpler patch has the same effect (also untested). diff -u linux-2.6.11-rc1-bk4/mm/mempolicy.c-o linux-2.6.11-rc1-bk4/mm/mempolicy.c --- linux-2.6.11-rc1-bk4/mm/mempolicy.c-o 2005-01-14 10:12:27.000000000 +0100 +++ linux-2.6.11-rc1-bk4/mm/mempolicy.c 2005-01-21 15:26:12.000000000 +0100 @@ -485,7 +485,7 @@ int err, pval; struct mm_struct *mm = current->mm; struct vm_area_struct *vma = NULL; - struct mempolicy *pol = current->mempolicy; + struct mempolicy *pol = current->mempolicy, *pol2 = NULL; if (flags & ~(unsigned long)(MPOL_F_NODE|MPOL_F_ADDR)) return -EINVAL; @@ -502,6 +502,10 @@ pol = vma->vm_ops->get_policy(vma, addr); else pol = vma->vm_policy; + pol2 = mpol_copy(pol); + up_read(&mm->mmap_sem); + if (IS_ERR(pol2)) + return PTR_ERR(pol2); } else if (addr) return -EINVAL; @@ -536,8 +540,7 @@ } out: - if (vma) - up_read(¤t->mm->mmap_sem); + mpol_free(pol2); return err; } - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/