[PATCH] mm: dup_mmap down new mmap_sem

One anomaly remains from when Andrea rationalized the responsibilities of
mmap_sem and page_table_lock: in dup_mmap we add vmas to the child holding its
page_table_lock, but not the mmap_sem which normally guards the vma list and
rbtree.  Which could be an issue for unuse_mm: though since it just walks down
the list (today with page_table_lock, tomorrow not), it's probably okay.  Will
need a memory barrier?  Oh, keep it simple, Nick and I agreed, no harm in
taking child's mmap_sem here.

Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>

1 files changed, 4 insertions, 5 deletions

diff --git a/kernel/fork.c b/kernel/fork.c
index 0e7fe4a8a8df..2a587b3224e3 100644
--- a/kernel/fork.c
+++ b/kernel/fork.c
@@ -192,6 +192,8 @@ static inline int dup_mmap(struct mm_struct *mm, struct mm_struct *oldmm)
 
         down_write(&oldmm->mmap_sem);
         flush_cache_mm(oldmm);
+        down_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
+
         mm->locked_vm = 0;
         mm->mmap = NULL;
         mm->mmap_cache = NULL;
@@ -251,10 +253,7 @@ static inline int dup_mmap(struct mm_struct *mm, struct mm_struct *oldmm)
                 }
 
                 /*
-                 * Link in the new vma and copy the page table entries:
-                 * link in first so that swapoff can see swap entries.
-                 * Note that, exceptionally, here the vma is inserted
-                 * without holding mm->mmap_sem.
+                 * Link in the new vma and copy the page table entries.
                  */
                 spin_lock(&mm->page_table_lock);
                 *pprev = tmp;
@@ -275,8 +274,8 @@ static inline int dup_mmap(struct mm_struct *mm, struct mm_struct *oldmm)
                         goto out;
         }
         retval = 0;
-
 out:
+        up_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
         flush_tlb_mm(oldmm);
         up_write(&oldmm->mmap_sem);
         return retval;