Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752531AbaABUdl (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Jan 2014 15:33:41 -0500 Received: from e37.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.158]:58770 "EHLO e37.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751841AbaABUdk (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Jan 2014 15:33:40 -0500 Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2014 12:33:20 -0800 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: cl@linux-foundation.org, penberg@kernel.org, mpm@selenic.com Subject: Memory allocator semantics Message-ID: <20140102203320.GA27615@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 14010220-7164-0000-0000-000004C6FE58 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1669 Lines: 49 Hello! >From what I can see, the Linux-kernel's SLAB, SLOB, and SLUB memory allocators would deal with the following sort of race: A. CPU 0: r1 = kmalloc(...); ACCESS_ONCE(gp) = r1; CPU 1: r2 = ACCESS_ONCE(gp); if (r2) kfree(r2); However, my guess is that this should be considered an accident of the current implementation rather than a feature. The reason for this is that I cannot see how you would usefully do (A) above without also allowing (B) and (C) below, both of which look to me to be quite destructive: B. CPU 0: r1 = kmalloc(...); ACCESS_ONCE(shared_x) = r1; CPU 1: r2 = ACCESS_ONCE(shared_x); if (r2) kfree(r2); CPU 2: r3 = ACCESS_ONCE(shared_x); if (r3) kfree(r3); This results in the memory being on two different freelists. C. CPU 0: r1 = kmalloc(...); ACCESS_ONCE(shared_x) = r1; CPU 1: r2 = ACCESS_ONCE(shared_x); r2->a = 1; r2->b = 2; CPU 2: r3 = ACCESS_ONCE(shared_x); if (r3) kfree(r3); CPU 3: r4 = kmalloc(...); r4->s = 3; r4->t = 4; This results in the memory being used by two different CPUs, each of which believe that they have sole access. But I thought I should ask the experts. So, am I correct that kernel hackers are required to avoid "drive-by" kfree()s of kmalloc()ed memory? Thanx, Paul PS. To the question "Why would anyone care about (A)?", then answer is "Inquiring programming-language memory-model designers want to know." -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/