On Thu, 4 May 2000, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> [ cc'ed to l-k sine it's relevant ]
>
> On Tue, 2 May 2000, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> >I'm currently testing the below.. maybe not correct, but bug is still
> >silent (so far).
>
> Great spotting Mike! :)
Thanks. (and sorry for stuttering so badly while 'explaining')
> I think that's not the correct fix though because there's probably still a
> window for a race if you happen to increase the mmap_sem when it was just
> zero (too late). I had a very fast look so I may be missing something but
> what do you think about this other below untested approch? It seems the
> task_lock() is there exactly to make sure the task won't go away from
> under us but it wasn't protecting the mm reference by mistake.
My box agrees with you that my attempt is wrong. Moving the task_lock()
back too it's original position (up one) works best here, but it looks
like it was moved intentionally so I keep trying to make it act right
where it is. (Even with it back in original position, my box isn't very
stable atm)
-Mike
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun May 07 2000 - 21:00:14 EST