On 17/10/14 05:23, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 10/16/2014 05:50 PM, David Vrabel wrote:
>> On 16/10/14 07:13, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>> When a new p2m leaf is allocated this leaf is linked into the p2m tree
>>> via cmpxchg. Unfortunately the compare value for checking the success
>>> of the update is read after checking for the need of a new leaf. It is
>>> possible that a new leaf has been linked into the tree concurrently
>>> in between. This could lead to a leaked memory page and to the loss of
>>> some p2m entries.
>>>
>>> Avoid the race by using the read compare value for checking the need
>>> of a new p2m leaf.
>> [...]
>>> @@ -579,11 +580,10 @@ static bool alloc_p2m(unsigned long pfn)
>>> }
>>> }
>>>
>>> - if (p2m_top[topidx][mididx] == p2m_identity ||
>>> - p2m_top[topidx][mididx] == p2m_missing) {
>>> + p2m_orig = p2m_top[topidx][mididx];
>>
>> Do you need to use ACCESS_ONCE() here?
>
> Yes, you are probably right. Should I send a new patch or do you want
> to modify it?
Can you go through and see if there are any other places in the p2m code
that also need ACCESS_ONCE()? And then repost, thanks!
David
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
