Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAHmME9rtoPwxUSnktxzKso14iuVCWT7BE_-_8PAC=pGw1iJnQg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALvZod6Dxx79ztxzHsDVe6pj7Fa7ydJAjMf_EHV9H15+AsVwdA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHmME9qvRDQOJYdSPaAf-hg5raacu4TBgStLy7NzFL+j+dXheQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALvZod5ZrxjZjJjAV_iH6hgq9pY2QEuFjNi+qvPSzob5Vighjg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHmME9r=+91YtujYqsBwf52VkCdPMD8VXJED_AsR42H5h9--mA@mail.gmail.com> <CACT4Y+b+9HK8Ti_iXA1DcHDeTR+Cj-xaQ+kQpvc7xPNafk5tkw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACT4Y+b+9HK8Ti_iXA1DcHDeTR+Cj-xaQ+kQpvc7xPNafk5tkw@mail.gmail.com>
From:   "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>
Date:   Tue, 19 Jun 2018 15:40:26 +0200
Message-ID: <CAHmME9q3Cwba4Z=cnosOrDUAWEHtYQ9FZ6hsDpOS4czvc6DJJg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Possible regression in "slab, slub: skip unnecessary kasan_cache_shutdown()"
To:     Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
Cc:     Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>, aryabinin@virtuozzo.com,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com>, cl@linux.com,
        penberg@kernel.org, rientjes@google.com, iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        kasan-dev@googlegroups.com, Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 3:31 PM Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com> wrote:
> Since I already looked at the code, if init and uninit can be called
> concurrently, I think there is a prominent race condition between init
> and uninit: a concurrent uninit can run concurrnetly with the next
> init and this will totally mess things up.

Good point; fixed. Though this doesn't have any effect on the issue here. :)