[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1305669256.2466.6286.camel@twins>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 23:54:16 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
Michal Nazarewicz <mina86@...a86.com>,
Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>,
Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...il.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] comm: Introduce comm_lock spinlock to protect
task->comm access
On Tue, 2011-05-17 at 23:27 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> > The implicit rules for current->comm access being safe without locking are no
> > longer true. Accessing current->comm without holding the task lock may result
> > in null or incomplete strings (however, access won't run off the end of the
> > string).
>
> This is rather unfortunate - task->comm is used in a number of performance
> critical codepaths such as tracing.
>
> Why does this matter so much? A NULL string is not a big deal.
>
> Note, since task->comm is 16 bytes there's the CMPXCHG16B instruction on x86
> which could be used to update it atomically, should atomicity really be
> desired.
The changelog also fails to mention _WHY_ this is no longer true. Nor
does it treat why making it true again isn't an option.
Who is changing another task's comm? That's just silly.
--
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