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-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
