From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@gmail.com>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@openvz.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] (Was: procfs: silence lockdep warning about read vs. exec seq_file)
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2014 12:20:43 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140804092043.GA13940@node.dhcp.inet.fi> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140803211843.GA13330@redhat.com>
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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-08-04 9:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-08-02 20:10 [PATCH, RESEND] procfs: silence lockdep warning about read vs. exec seq_file Kirill A. Shutemov
2014-08-03 16:44 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-08-03 21:18 ` [PATCH 0/5] (Was: procfs: silence lockdep warning about read vs. exec seq_file) Oleg Nesterov
2014-08-03 21:19 ` [PATCH 1/5] fs/proc/task_mmu.c: don't use task->mm in m_start() and show_*map() Oleg Nesterov
2014-08-03 21:19 ` [PATCH 2/5] fs/proc/task_mmu.c: unify/simplify do_maps_open() and numa_maps_open() Oleg Nesterov
2014-08-03 21:20 ` [PATCH 3/5] proc: introduce proc_mem_open() Oleg Nesterov
2014-08-03 21:20 ` [PATCH 4/5] fs/proc/task_mmu.c: introduce the "stable" proc_maps_private->mm Oleg Nesterov
2014-08-03 21:20 ` [PATCH 5/5] fs/proc/task_mmu.c: change m_start() to rely on priv->mm and avoid mm_access() Oleg Nesterov
2014-08-04 6:59 ` [PATCH 0/5] (Was: procfs: silence lockdep warning about read vs. exec seq_file) Cyrill Gorcunov
2014-08-04 9:20 ` Kirill A. Shutemov [this message]
2014-08-04 14:55 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-08-05 3:42 ` [PATCH, RESEND] procfs: silence lockdep warning about read vs. exec seq_file Eric W. Biederman
2014-08-05 8:46 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20140804092043.GA13940@node.dhcp.inet.fi \
--to=kirill@shutemov.name \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=gorcunov@openvz.org \
--cc=kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com \
--cc=levinsasha928@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).