[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140804092043.GA13940@node.dhcp.inet.fi>
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2014 12:20:43 +0300
From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
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: Re: [PATCH 0/5] (Was: procfs: silence lockdep warning about read vs.
exec seq_file)
On Sun, Aug 03, 2014 at 11:18:43PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> 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?
Look good. And works for me.
> 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.
task_nommu.c need to be covered too, I believe.
--
Kirill A. Shutemov
--
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