[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090331144051.GA3951@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 16:40:51 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, adobriyan@...il.com,
dhowells@...hat.com, ebiederm@...ssion.com, hch@....de,
matthltc@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: + mm-remove-struct-mm_struct-exe_file-et-al.patch added to -mm
tree
s/mm-commits/lkml/
On 03/30, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> From: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
>
> Commit 925d1c401fa6cfd0df5d2e37da8981494ccdec07 ("procfs task exe
> symlink"). introduced struct mm_struct::exe_file and struct
> mm_struct::num_exe_file_vmas.
>
> The rationale is weak: unifying MMU and no-MMU version of /proc/*/exe
> code. For this a) struct mm_struct becomes bigger, b) mmap/munmap/exit
> become slower, c) patch adds more code than removes in fact.
>
> ->exe_file maybe well defined, but doesn't make sense always. After
> original executable is unmapped, /proc/*/exe will still report it and,
> more importantly, pin corresponding struct file.
I never liked the change which introduced mm->exe_file, so I vote for
this patch.
But, as a advocatus diaboli... There was anotrher reason for ->exe_file,
iirc.
bprm->file->f_op->mmap() can change vma->vm_file, this means proc_exe_link()
can report the "wrong" path. The original file is not pinned in this case.
Matt?
Oleg.
--
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