From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Anton Vorontsov Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 15:40:27 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/9] um: Should hold tasklist_lock while traversing processes Message-Id: <20120423154027.GA23066@lizard> List-Id: References: <20120423070641.GA27702@lizard> <20120423070925.GG30752@lizard> <4F956DF2.7020408@nod.at> In-Reply-To: <4F956DF2.7020408@nod.at> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 04:57:54PM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote: > On 23.04.2012 09:09, Anton Vorontsov wrote: > >Traversing the tasks requires holding tasklist_lock, otherwise it > >is unsafe. > > > >p.s. However, I'm not sure that calling os_kill_ptraced_process() > >in the atomic context is correct. It seem to work, but please > >take a closer look. > > > >Signed-off-by: Anton Vorontsov > >--- > > You forgot my Ack and I've already explained why > os_kill_ptraced_process() is fine. Ouch, sorry! -- Anton Vorontsov Email: cbouatmailru@gmail.com From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 08:40:27 -0700 From: Anton Vorontsov Message-ID: <20120423154027.GA23066@lizard> References: <20120423070641.GA27702@lizard> <20120423070925.GG30752@lizard> <4F956DF2.7020408@nod.at> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4F956DF2.7020408@nod.at> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/9] um: Should hold tasklist_lock while traversing processes To: Richard Weinberger Cc: Andrew Morton , Oleg Nesterov , Russell King , Mike Frysinger , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Paul Mundt , Peter Zijlstra , KOSAKI Motohiro , John Stultz , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, uclinux-dist-devel@blackfin.uclinux.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, patches@linaro.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 04:57:54PM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote: > On 23.04.2012 09:09, Anton Vorontsov wrote: > >Traversing the tasks requires holding tasklist_lock, otherwise it > >is unsafe. > > > >p.s. However, I'm not sure that calling os_kill_ptraced_process() > >in the atomic context is correct. It seem to work, but please > >take a closer look. > > > >Signed-off-by: Anton Vorontsov > >--- > > You forgot my Ack and I've already explained why > os_kill_ptraced_process() is fine. Ouch, sorry! -- Anton Vorontsov Email: cbouatmailru@gmail.com From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-yw0-f51.google.com (mail-yw0-f51.google.com [209.85.213.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority" (not verified)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 26208B6EE7 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 01:41:48 +1000 (EST) Received: by yhnn12 with SMTP id n12so6560797yhn.38 for ; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 08:41:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 08:40:27 -0700 From: Anton Vorontsov To: Richard Weinberger Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/9] um: Should hold tasklist_lock while traversing processes Message-ID: <20120423154027.GA23066@lizard> References: <20120423070641.GA27702@lizard> <20120423070925.GG30752@lizard> <4F956DF2.7020408@nod.at> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 In-Reply-To: <4F956DF2.7020408@nod.at> Cc: linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, Mike Frysinger , Peter Zijlstra , user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, patches@linaro.org, Oleg Nesterov , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Paul Mundt , John Stultz , KOSAKI Motohiro , uclinux-dist-devel@blackfin.uclinux.org, Russell King , Andrew Morton , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 04:57:54PM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote: > On 23.04.2012 09:09, Anton Vorontsov wrote: > >Traversing the tasks requires holding tasklist_lock, otherwise it > >is unsafe. > > > >p.s. However, I'm not sure that calling os_kill_ptraced_process() > >in the atomic context is correct. It seem to work, but please > >take a closer look. > > > >Signed-off-by: Anton Vorontsov > >--- > > You forgot my Ack and I've already explained why > os_kill_ptraced_process() is fine. Ouch, sorry! -- Anton Vorontsov Email: cbouatmailru@gmail.com From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: anton.vorontsov@linaro.org (Anton Vorontsov) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 08:40:27 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 7/9] um: Should hold tasklist_lock while traversing processes In-Reply-To: <4F956DF2.7020408@nod.at> References: <20120423070641.GA27702@lizard> <20120423070925.GG30752@lizard> <4F956DF2.7020408@nod.at> Message-ID: <20120423154027.GA23066@lizard> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 04:57:54PM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote: > On 23.04.2012 09:09, Anton Vorontsov wrote: > >Traversing the tasks requires holding tasklist_lock, otherwise it > >is unsafe. > > > >p.s. However, I'm not sure that calling os_kill_ptraced_process() > >in the atomic context is correct. It seem to work, but please > >take a closer look. > > > >Signed-off-by: Anton Vorontsov > >--- > > You forgot my Ack and I've already explained why > os_kill_ptraced_process() is fine. Ouch, sorry! -- Anton Vorontsov Email: cbouatmailru at gmail.com From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx131.postini.com [74.125.245.131]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 59D366B0044 for ; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 11:41:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: by yenm8 with SMTP id m8so8542246yen.14 for ; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 08:41:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 08:40:27 -0700 From: Anton Vorontsov Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/9] um: Should hold tasklist_lock while traversing processes Message-ID: <20120423154027.GA23066@lizard> References: <20120423070641.GA27702@lizard> <20120423070925.GG30752@lizard> <4F956DF2.7020408@nod.at> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4F956DF2.7020408@nod.at> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Richard Weinberger Cc: Andrew Morton , Oleg Nesterov , Russell King , Mike Frysinger , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Paul Mundt , Peter Zijlstra , KOSAKI Motohiro , John Stultz , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, uclinux-dist-devel@blackfin.uclinux.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, patches@linaro.org, linux-mm@kvack.org On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 04:57:54PM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote: > On 23.04.2012 09:09, Anton Vorontsov wrote: > >Traversing the tasks requires holding tasklist_lock, otherwise it > >is unsafe. > > > >p.s. However, I'm not sure that calling os_kill_ptraced_process() > >in the atomic context is correct. It seem to work, but please > >take a closer look. > > > >Signed-off-by: Anton Vorontsov > >--- > > You forgot my Ack and I've already explained why > os_kill_ptraced_process() is fine. Ouch, sorry! -- Anton Vorontsov Email: cbouatmailru@gmail.com -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: email@kvack.org