Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752781AbaBJTIE (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Feb 2014 14:08:04 -0500 Received: from qmta03.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.32]:53089 "EHLO qmta03.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751807AbaBJTIB (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Feb 2014 14:08:01 -0500 Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 13:07:58 -0600 (CST) From: Christoph Lameter X-X-Sender: cl@nuc To: Pekka Enberg cc: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, penberg@kernel.org, mpm@selenic.com Subject: Re: Memory allocator semantics In-Reply-To: <52F60699.8010204@iki.fi> Message-ID: References: <20140102203320.GA27615@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <52F60699.8010204@iki.fi> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 8 Feb 2014, Pekka Enberg wrote: > So to be completely honest, I don't understand what is the race in (A) that > concerns the *memory allocator*. I also don't what the memory allocator can > do in (B) and (C) which look like double-free and use-after-free, > respectively, to me. :-) Well it seems to be some academic mind game to me. Does an invocation of the allocator have barrier semantics or not? -- 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/