[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <875zd66za3.fsf_-_@x220.int.ebiederm.org>
Date: Fri, 08 May 2020 13:45:56 -0500
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Greg Ungerer <gerg@...ux-m68k.org>,
Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>,
Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlinger@...mail.de>,
<linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>, Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: [PATCH 4/6] exec: Run sync_mm_rss before taking exec_update_mutex
Like exec_mm_release sync_mm_rss is about flushing out the state of
the old_mm, which does not need to happen under exec_update_mutex.
Make this explicit by moving sync_mm_rss outside of exec_update_mutex.
Signed-off-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
---
fs/exec.c | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/fs/exec.c b/fs/exec.c
index 11a5c073aa35..15682a1dfee9 100644
--- a/fs/exec.c
+++ b/fs/exec.c
@@ -1051,13 +1051,14 @@ static int exec_mmap(struct mm_struct *mm)
tsk = current;
old_mm = current->mm;
exec_mm_release(tsk, old_mm);
+ if (old_mm)
+ sync_mm_rss(old_mm);
ret = mutex_lock_killable(&tsk->signal->exec_update_mutex);
if (ret)
return ret;
if (old_mm) {
- sync_mm_rss(old_mm);
/*
* Make sure that if there is a core dump in progress
* for the old mm, we get out and die instead of going
--
2.20.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists