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

[Kirill A. Shutemov]

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
--
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/