From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1753638AbbIWJti (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 23 Sep 2015 05:49:38 -0400
Received: from mail-pa0-f50.google.com ([209.85.220.50]:34015 "EHLO
	mail-pa0-f50.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1753158AbbIWJtg (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 23 Sep 2015 05:49:36 -0400
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 18:50:22 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@parallels.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Kyle Walker <kwalker@redhat.com>, Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>, linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Stanislav Kozina <skozina@redhat.com>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
Subject: Re: [patch] mm, oom: remove task_lock protecting comm printing
Message-ID: <20150923095022.GB640@swordfish>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1509221629440.7794@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
 <20150923080632.GD12318@esperanza>
 <20150923091354.GA640@swordfish>
 <20150923093021.GE12318@esperanza>
 <20150923094358.GB8644@dhcp22.suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150923094358.GB8644@dhcp22.suse.cz>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On (09/23/15 11:43), Michal Hocko wrote:
[..]
> > > the previous name was already null terminated,
> > 
> > Yeah, but if the old name is shorter than the new one, set_task_comm()
> > overwrites the terminating null of the old name before writing the new
> > terminating null, so there is a short time window during which tsk->comm
> > might be not null-terminated, no?
> 
> Not really:
>         case PR_SET_NAME:
>                 comm[sizeof(me->comm) - 1] = 0;
>                 if (strncpy_from_user(comm, (char __user *)arg2,
>                                       sizeof(me->comm) - 1) < 0)
>                         return -EFAULT;
> 
> So it first writes the terminating 0 and only then starts copying.

right.

hm, shouldn't set_task_comm()->__set_task_comm() do the same?

	-ss