Re: [COUNTERPATCH] mm: avoid overflowing preempt_count() in mmu_take_all_locks()

[Avi Kivity]

On 04/01/2010 02:04 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > mmu_take_all_locks() takes a spinlock for each vma, which means we increase
> > > the preempt count by the number of vmas in an address space.  Since the user
> > > controls the number of vmas, they can cause preempt_count to overflow.
> > >
> > > Fix by making mmu_take_all_locks() only disable preemption once by making
> > > the spinlocks preempt-neutral.
> > >        
> > Right, so while this will get rid of the warning it doesn't make the
> > code any nicer, its still a massive !preempt latency spot.
> >      
> I'm not sure whether this is a real well done April 1st joke or if there
> is someone trying to secure the "bad taste patch of the month" price.
>    

I don't think a spin_lock_nested_while_preempt_disabled() is worthwhile 
for this.

> Anyway, I don't see a reason why we can't convert those locks to
> mutexes and get rid of the whole preempt disabled region.
>    

If someone is willing to audit all code paths to make sure these locks 
are always taken in schedulable context I agree that's a better fix.

--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/