[PATCH 0/5] (Was: procfs: silence lockdep warning about read vs. exec seq_file)

[Oleg Nesterov]

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?

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.

Oleg.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/