Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S269379AbUINPOe (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:14:34 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S269267AbUINPNS (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:13:18 -0400 Received: from fw.osdl.org ([65.172.181.6]:50121 "EHLO mail.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S269384AbUINPL3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:11:29 -0400 Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 08:06:14 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds To: Nick Piggin cc: Andries Brouwer , Andrew Morton , Kernel Mailing List , Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [no patch] broken use of mm_release / deactivate_mm In-Reply-To: <4146E6F0.5030405@yahoo.com.au> Message-ID: References: <20040913190633.GA22639@apps.cwi.nl> <4146E6F0.5030405@yahoo.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 999 Lines: 29 On Tue, 14 Sep 2004, Nick Piggin wrote: > > > > I agree. Looks like the "exit_mm()" should really be a "mmput()". > > > > Can we have a few more eyes on this thing? Ingo, Nick? > > AFAIKS yes. exit_mm doesn't look legal unless its dropping the current > mm context. And mmput looks like it should clean up everything - it is > used almost exactly the same way to cleanup a failure case in copy_mm. Does everybody also agree that the if (p->active_mm) mmdrop(p->active_mm); should also be dropped, and that mmput() does all of that correctly too? (Again, looking at all the counts etc, I think the answer is a resounding yes, but dammit, this code has obviously never gotten any testing at all, since it effectively never happens). Linus - 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/