On Wed, Jun 21, 2006 at 02:42:50PM -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Sonny Rao ([email protected]):
> > On Wed, Jun 21, 2006 at 02:09:10PM -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > > Yeah, I proposed a similar patch to Anton, and it would quiet the
> > > > warning on powerpc, but that's not the point. It happens that powerpc
> > > > doesn't use 0 as a context id, but that may not be true on another
> > > > architecture. That's really what I'm concerned about.
> > >
> > > FWIW, ppc and cris do the NO_CONTEXT check, while others don't
> > > even have a arch-specific 'mm->context.id'.
> >
> > Good point. I probably stated that concern too narrowly. Probably
> > what I should say is: What is the pre-condition for calling
> > destroy_context() ? Is it that init_new_context() must have
> > succeeded? Or is it merely that mm.context has been zeroed
> > out?
>
> Right, that may be the right question. If that's the case, then the
> problem is really include/linux/sched.h:__mmdrop() which is what's
> calling destroy_context(). Separating that out becomes a pretty
> big patch affecting at least all mmput() and mmdrop() callers.
So mmdrop() inlines to an atomic_dec_and_test on mm_count and a call
to __mmdrop which makes three calls : mm_free_pgd(), destroy_context(),
and free_mm(). I _think_ that in this case __mmdrop() will always get
called.
We know that the destroy_context() is unnecessary, but mm_free_pgd()
and free_mm() are necessary.
I was thinking we _could_ open code these calls in exec.c but that seems
like a "Really Bad Idea" w.r.t abstraction/maintenance etc,
and the alternative is to make another function/macro just for this
special case, which also seems like a poor choice.
> > It seems to assume that mm->context is valid before doing a check.
> >
> > Since I don't have a sparc64 box, I can't check to see if this
> > actually breaks things or not.
>
> So we can either go through all arch's and make sure destroy_context is
> safe for invalid context, or split mmput() and destroy_context()...
>
> The former seems easier, but the latter seems more robust in the face of
> future code changes I guess.
Yes, the former does seem easier, and perhaps easiest is to do that
and document what the pre-conditions are so future developers at least
have a clue.
-
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]
