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? > > 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. If only I didn't miss something obvious this is quite the good cleanup, thanks 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
