From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 12:04:25 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 12:04:15 -0500 Received: from d12lmsgate-3.de.ibm.com ([195.212.91.201]:2783 "EHLO d12lmsgate-3.de.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 12:04:04 -0500 From: Ulrich.Weigand@de.ibm.com X-Lotus-FromDomain: IBMDE To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org cc: schwidefsky@de.ibm.com Message-ID: Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 17:33:17 +0100 Subject: bug: merge_segments vs. lock_vma_mappings? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello, since test11, the merge_segments() routine assumes that every VMA that it frees has been locked with lock_vma_mappings(). While most callers have been adapted to perform this locking, at least two, do_mlock and sys_mprotect, do *not* currently. This causes a deadlock in certain situations. What's the correct way to fix this? In mlock and mprotect, potentially many segments could be freed; do we need to call lock_vma_mappings on all of them before calling merge_segments? Mit freundlichen Gruessen / Best Regards Ulrich Weigand -- Dr. Ulrich Weigand Linux for S/390 Design & Development IBM Deutschland Entwicklung GmbH, Schoenaicher Str. 220, 71032 Boeblingen Phone: +49-7031/16-3727 --- Email: Ulrich.Weigand@de.ibm.com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/