[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1308161486.2171.61.camel@laptop>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 20:11:26 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jim Keniston <jkenisto@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...k.frob.com>,
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3.0-rc2-tip 7/22] 7: uprobes: mmap and fork hooks.
On Tue, 2011-06-07 at 18:29 +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> + up_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
> + mutex_lock(&uprobes_mutex);
> + down_read(&mm->mmap_sem);
egads, and all that without a comment explaining why you think that is
even remotely sane.
I'm not at all convinced, it would expose the mmap() even though you
could still decide to tear it down if this function were to fail, I bet
there's some funnies there.
--
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