Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> $ git grep exec_mm_release
> fs/exec.c: exec_mm_release(tsk, old_mm);
> include/linux/sched/mm.h:extern void exec_mm_release(struct task_struct *, struct mm_struct *);
> kernel/fork.c:void exec_mm_release(struct task_struct *tsk, struct mm_struct *mm)
>
> kernel/fork.c:
>
> void exit_mm_release(struct task_struct *tsk, struct mm_struct *mm)
> {
> futex_exit_release(tsk);
> mm_release(tsk, mm);
> }
>
> void exec_mm_release(struct task_struct *tsk, struct mm_struct *mm)
> {
> futex_exec_release(tsk);
> mm_release(tsk, mm);
> }
>
> $ git grep exit_mm_release
> include/linux/sched/mm.h:extern void exit_mm_release(struct task_struct *, struct mm_struct *);
> kernel/exit.c: exit_mm_release(current, mm);
> kernel/fork.c:void exit_mm_release(struct task_struct *tsk, struct mm_struct *mm)
>
> kernel/exit.c:
>
> exit_mm_release(current, mm);
> if (!mm)
> return;
> sync_mm_rss(mm);
>
> It looks to me like both exec_mm_release() and exit_mm_release() could
> easily have the sync_mm_rss(...) folded into their function bodies and
> removed from the callers. *shrug*
Well it would have to be all of:
if (mm)
sync_mm_rss(mm);
I remember reading through exit_mm_release and seeing that nothing
actually depended upon a non-NULL mm. Unless you have clear_child_tid
set.
I am not up to speed on that part of the mm layer right now to know if
it is a good idea to put sync_mm_rss in exit_mm_release but at a quick
look it feels like it.
Eric
