"Siddha, Suresh B" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 01:50:13PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > "Siddha, Suresh B" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > +#define TASK_SIZE_OF(child) ((test_tsk_thread_flag(child, TIF_IA32)) ? IA32_PAGE_OFFSET : TASK_SIZE64)
> >
> > The task size is an attribute of the task's mm_struct, not of the task.
>
> ia64, ppc64 and s390 seems be getting this info from thread_info or
> thread_struct in the task struct.
I know. I'm claiming that this is conceptually wrong.
> > The place where this tends to come unstuck is when a 32-bit task holds a
> > reference on a 64-bit tasks's task_struct via a read of a /proc file. If
> > the 64-bit task exits then it is the 32-bit task who does the final freeing
> > of the 64-bit tasks's task_struct and mm_struct. (and all vice-versa, of
> > course). Will your patch handle this race scenario correctly?
>
> In recent kernels, instead of TASK_SIZE, "-1" is getting passed to unmap_vmas()
> from exit_mmap. Same case with ceiling (set to "0") for free_pgtables().
> It shouldn't be a problem with this, right?
Yeah, I recall that hack being added. Might work.
-
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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
