On 02/29, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> On Mon 29-02-16 18:23:34, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 02/29, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > >
> > > @@ -267,7 +267,10 @@ static int __bprm_mm_init(struct linux_binprm *bprm)
> > > if (!vma)
> > > return -ENOMEM;
> > >
> > > - down_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
> > > + if (down_write_killable(&mm->mmap_sem)) {
> > > + err = -EINTR;
> > > + goto err_free;
> > > + }
> > > vma->vm_mm = mm;
> >
> > I won't argue, but this looks unnecessary. Nobody else can see this new mm,
> > down_write() can't block.
> >
> > In fact I think we can just remove down_write/up_write here. Except perhaps
> > there is lockdep_assert_held() somewhere in these paths.
>
> This is what I had initially but then I've noticed that mm_alloc() does
> mm_init(current)->init_new_context(current)
yes, and init_new_context() is arch dependant...
> code doesn't seem much harder to follow, the callers are already
> handling all error paths so I guess it would be better to simply move on
> this.
Yes, agreed, please forget.
Oleg.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
