[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090127155743.GE5034@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 10:57:43 -0500
From: Kyle McMartin <kyle@...radead.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Kyle McMartin <kyle@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Christoph Bartelmus <lirc@...telmus.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andy Whitcroft <apw@...dowen.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] make checkpatch warn about access to current->comm
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 07:45:41AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 27 Jan 2009, Kyle McMartin wrote:
> >
> > Suggest using the get_task_comm accessor versus direct access to
> > current->comm.
>
> I think "current->comm" is fine, and not racy.
>
> It only gets racy when you ask for the name of _another_ task.
>
> And quite frankly, I don't think anybody but /proc does that anyway. I
> think this whole "get_task_comm()" thing is overrated. Most people are
> better off doing just "current->comm".
>
Sure, fine by me. I'd forgotten that prctl doesn't have a `pid' argument
to change another tasks comm.
regards, Kyle
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists