On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 03:20:01PM +0200, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > In contrast, from kfree() to a kmalloc() returning some of the kfree()ed
> > memory, I believe the kfree()/kmalloc() implementation must do any needed
> > synchronization and ordering. But that is a different set of examples,
> > for example, this one:
> >
> > CPU 0 CPU 1
> > p->a = 42; q = kmalloc(...); /* returning p */
> > kfree(p); q->a = 5;
> > BUG_ON(q->a != 5);
> >
> > Unlike the situation with (A), (B), and (C), in this case I believe
> > that it is kfree()'s and kmalloc()'s responsibility to ensure that
> > the BUG_ON() never triggers.
> >
> > Make sense?
>
> I'm not sure...
>
> It's the caller's responsibility not to touch "p" after it's handed over to
> kfree() - otherwise that's a "use-after-free" error. If there's some
> reordering
> going on here, I'm tempted to blame the caller for lack of locking.
But if the two callers are unrelated, what locking can they possibly use?
>From what I can see, the current implementation prevents the above
BUG_ON() from firing. If the two CPUs are the same, the CPU will see its
own accesses in order, while if they are different, the implementation
will have had to push the memory through non-CPU-local data structures,
which must have had some heavyweight protection.
Thanx, Paul
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
