From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754266AbaHUTDX (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Aug 2014 15:03:23 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:23772 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752909AbaHUTDV (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Aug 2014 15:03:21 -0400 Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 21:00:20 +0200 From: Oleg Nesterov To: Andrew Morton , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , David Rientjes , KOSAKI Motohiro Cc: Alexander Viro , Cyrill Gorcunov , "Eric W. Biederman" , "Kirill A. Shutemov" , Peter Zijlstra , Hugh Dickins , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: [PATCH 0/4] mempolicy: fix show_numa_map() vs exec() + do_set_mempolicy() race Message-ID: <20140821190020.GA8703@redhat.com> References: <20140805194627.GA30693@redhat.com> <20140820192207.GA8524@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140820192207.GA8524@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 08/20, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > I belive that 9e7814404b77c3e8 "hold task->mempolicy while numa_maps scans" > was wrong and it doesn't fix the problem. See 2/4. > I'll try to send the fix tomorrow, could you review the initial preparations? > To me, these changes make sense as cleanups in any case, but I don't really > understand this code and this was only compile tested. Untested again because I do not know how, please review ;) On top of "mempolicy: get_task_policy() cleanups/preparations" series. I'll send the final cleanups later. Oleg. fs/proc/task_mmu.c | 33 ++++++----------------- include/linux/mempolicy.h | 5 ++- mm/mempolicy.c | 64 +++++++++++++++++++------------------------- 3 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 62 deletions(-)