Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 3 Dec 2012 15:01:10 -0800 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [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?
| |