lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Aug]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 5/6] mm: always lock new vma before inserting into vma tree
* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> [230803 14:02]:
> On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 at 10:27, Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > While it's not strictly necessary to lock a newly created vma before
> > adding it into the vma tree (as long as no further changes are performed
> > to it), it seems like a good policy to lock it and prevent accidental
> > changes after it becomes visible to the page faults. Lock the vma before
> > adding it into the vma tree.
>
> So my main reaction here is that I started to wonder about the vma allocation.
>
> Why doesn't vma_init() do something like
>
> mmap_assert_write_locked(mm);
> vma->vm_lock_seq = mm->mm_lock_seq;
>
> and instead we seem to expect vma_lock_alloc() to do this (and do it
> very badly indeed).
>
> Strange.
>
> Anyway, this observation was just a reaction to that "not strictly
> necessary to lock a newly created vma" part of the commentary. I feel
> like we could/should just make sure that all newly created vma's are
> always simply created write-locked.
>

I thought the same thing initially, but Suren pointed out that it's not
necessary to hold the vma lock to allocate a vma object. And it seems
there is at least one user (arch/ia64/mm/init.c) which does allocate
outside the lock during ia64_init_addr_space(), which is fine but I'm
not sure it gains much to do it this way - the insert needs to take the
lock anyways and it is hardly going to be contended.

Anywhere else besides an address space setup would probably introduce a
race.

Thanks,
Liam

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-08-03 20:16    [W:0.076 / U:0.016 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site