On Sun, 12 Mar 2006, Akinobu Mita wrote:
> When we've allocated SWAPFILE_CLUSTER pages, ->cluster_next should
> be the first index of swap cluster. But current code probably sets it
> wrong offset.
>
> Signed-off-by: Akinobu Mita <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Hugh Dickins <[email protected]>
Very good eye! My shame.
No need to say "probably" above, it was simply wrong.
By a stroke of luck, it's no worse than a slight inefficiency in an
algorithm only used when we're already going slow; but (if offset had
been signed, or not checked against highest_bit for unrelated reasons)
it could very easily have tried to access and modify swap_map[-1].
Anyway, thanks for catching that:
Andrew, please apply (but not desperate for 2.6.16).
Hugh
> Index: work/mm/swapfile.c
> ===================================================================
> --- work.orig/mm/swapfile.c
> +++ work/mm/swapfile.c
> @@ -116,7 +116,7 @@ static inline unsigned long scan_swap_ma
> last_in_cluster = offset + SWAPFILE_CLUSTER;
> else if (offset == last_in_cluster) {
> spin_lock(&swap_lock);
> - si->cluster_next = offset-SWAPFILE_CLUSTER-1;
> + si->cluster_next = offset-SWAPFILE_CLUSTER+1;
> goto cluster;
> }
> if (unlikely(--latency_ration < 0)) {
-
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]
