On Mon, 19 Sep 2005, Hugh Dickins wrote:
>
> I was totally overlooking the page_table_lock during the fork.
>
> But no matter, it's not good enough: src_mm->page_table_lock is acquired
> and dropped at the inner level, in copy_pte_range (looking at latest 2.6):
> it cannot be held across allocating page tables for dst_mm.
>
> So each time T1 drops it, there's a window for the T2 vs. T3 problem.
> Yet we don't much want to flush TLB each time we leave copy_pte_range.
Hmm. But we do hold the mmap_sem for writing, and we flush before we
release it, so it should still be ok. The page fault case needs to get it
for reading anyway.
Yeah, the page_table_lock might make more sense, but I think the mmap_sem
thing works equally well.
Linus
-
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]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |