[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20110420093900.45F6.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 09:39:00 +0900 (JST)
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com,
Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Michal Nazarewicz <mina86@...a86.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] break out page allocation warning code
> On Tue, 19 Apr 2011, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
>
> > The rule is,
> >
> > 1) writing comm
> > need task_lock
> > 2) read _another_ thread's comm
> > need task_lock
> > 3) read own comm
> > no need task_lock
> >
>
> That was true a while ago, but you now need to protect every thread's
> ->comm with get_task_comm() or ensuring task_lock() is held to protect
> against /proc/pid/comm which can change other thread's ->comm. That was
> different before when prctl(PR_SET_NAME) would only operate on current, so
> no lock was needed when reading current->comm.
Right. /proc/pid/comm is evil. We have to fix it. otherwise we need change
all of current->comm user. It's very lots!
--
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