[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140803211843.GA13330@redhat.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2014 23:18:43 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
Cc: Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: [PATCH 0/5] (Was: procfs: silence lockdep warning about read vs.
exec seq_file)
On 08/03, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> The question is, why m_start() calls mm_access(). This is not even
> strictly correct if the task execs between m_stop() + m_start().
>
> Can't we do something like below? The patch is obviously horrible and
> incomplete, just to explain what I meant. Basically this is what
> proc_mem_operations does.
Absolutely untested, only for review.
What do you all think?
Sure, with this change you can't open (say) /proc/pid/maps, and read the
new mappings after exec. But hopefully this is fine? And again, this
matches /proc/pid/mem.
lock_trace() users need another fix.
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