lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Dec]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] mm: protect against concurrent vma expansion
On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 22:56:27 -0800
Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com> wrote:

> expand_stack() runs with a shared mmap_sem lock. Because of this, there
> could be multiple concurrent stack expansions in the same mm, which may
> cause problems in the vma gap update code.
>
> I propose to solve this by taking the mm->page_table_lock around such vma
> expansions, in order to avoid the concurrency issue. We only have to worry
> about concurrent expand_stack() calls here, since we hold a shared mmap_sem
> lock and all vma modificaitons other than expand_stack() are done under
> an exclusive mmap_sem lock.
>
> I previously tried to achieve the same effect by making sure all
> growable vmas in a given mm would share the same anon_vma, which we
> already lock here. However this turned out to be difficult - all of the
> schemes I tried for refcounting the growable anon_vma and clearing
> turned out ugly. So, I'm now proposing only the minimal fix.
>

I think I don't understand the problem fully. Let me demonstrate:

a) vma_lock_anon_vma() doesn't take a lock which is specific to
"this" anon_vma. It takes anon_vma->root->mutex. That mutex is
shared with vma->vm_next, yes? If so, we have no problem here?
(which makes me suspect that the races lies other than where I think
it lies).

b) I can see why a broader lock is needed in expand_upwards(): it
plays with a different vma: vma->vm_next. But expand_downwards()
doesn't do that - it only alters "this" vma. So I'd have thought
that vma_lock_anon_vma("this" vma) would be sufficient.


What are the performance costs of this change?


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-12-04 00:41    [W:0.053 / U:4.532 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site