[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090507002133.02D05FC39E@magilla.sf.frob.com>
Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 17:21:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/3a] ptrace: add _ptrace_may_access()
> I was going to cleanup this later. Because I think that
> __ptrace_may_access() should die. It has only one caller, mm_for_maps().
CC'ing Al Viro, who wrote mm_for_maps() (and no one has touched it since,
see commit 831830b).
> I will re-check, but it looks a bit strange. More precisely, I just
> can't understand it. Why we can't just do
>
> struct mm_struct *mm_for_maps(struct task_struct *task)
> {
> struct mm_struct *mm = get_task_mm(task);
>
> if (mm && mm != current->mm && !ptrace_may_access()) {
> mmput(mm);
> mm = NULL;
> }
>
> return mm;
> }
That seems fine to me. I suspect the old code just predated the PF_KTHREAD
check in get_task_mm() and excluding the borrowed-mm window races was the
only reason for using task_lock() that way.
> ? We do not care if this task exits and clears ->mm right before
> or after ptrace_may_access(), and this is possible eith the current
> code too once it drops tasklist.
I agree.
Thanks,
Roland
--
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