Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 4 Aug 2014 12:20:43 +0300 | From | "Kirill A. Shutemov" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/5] (Was: procfs: silence lockdep warning about read vs. exec seq_file) |
| |
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
| |