From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qc0-f169.google.com (mail-qc0-f169.google.com [209.85.216.169]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B1406B0037 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 14:08:02 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-qc0-f169.google.com with SMTP id w7so11434524qcr.0 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 11:08:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from qmta13.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net (qmta13.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net. [2001:558:fe2d:44:76:96:27:243]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id w9si10676896qgw.173.2014.02.10.11.08.00 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 11:08:01 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 13:07:58 -0600 (CST) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: Memory allocator semantics In-Reply-To: <52F60699.8010204@iki.fi> Message-ID: References: <20140102203320.GA27615@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <52F60699.8010204@iki.fi> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Pekka Enberg Cc: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, penberg@kernel.org, mpm@selenic.com On Sat, 8 Feb 2014, Pekka Enberg wrote: > So to be completely honest, I don't understand what is the race in (A) that > concerns the *memory allocator*. I also don't what the memory allocator can > do in (B) and (C) which look like double-free and use-after-free, > respectively, to me. :-) Well it seems to be some academic mind game to me. Does an invocation of the allocator have barrier semantics or not? -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org