From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx178.postini.com [74.125.245.178]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 852F46B004A for ; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 10:58:19 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4F956DF2.7020408@nod.at> Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 16:57:54 +0200 From: Richard Weinberger MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/9] um: Should hold tasklist_lock while traversing processes References: <20120423070641.GA27702@lizard> <20120423070925.GG30752@lizard> In-Reply-To: <20120423070925.GG30752@lizard> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Anton Vorontsov 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 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. Thanks, //richard -- 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