On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 02:20:39AM +0800, Yang Shi wrote: > +++ b/kernel/sys.c > @@ -1959,7 +1959,7 @@ static int prctl_set_mm_map(int opt, const void __user *addr, unsigned long data > return error; > } > > - down_write(&mm->mmap_sem); > + down_read(&mm->mmap_sem); > > /* > * We don't validate if these members are pointing to > @@ -1980,10 +1980,13 @@ static int prctl_set_mm_map(int opt, const void __user *addr, unsigned long data > mm->start_brk = prctl_map.start_brk; > mm->brk = prctl_map.brk; > mm->start_stack = prctl_map.start_stack; > + > + spin_lock(&mm->arg_lock); > mm->arg_start = prctl_map.arg_start; > mm->arg_end = prctl_map.arg_end; > mm->env_start = prctl_map.env_start; > mm->env_end = prctl_map.env_end; > + spin_unlock(&mm->arg_lock); > > /* > * Note this update of @saved_auxv is lockless thus I see the argument for the change to a write lock was because of a BUG validating arg_start and arg_end, but more generally, we are updating these values, so a write-lock is probably a good idea, and this is a very rare operation to do, so we don't care about making this more parallel. I would not make this change (but if other more knowledgable people in this area disagree with me, I will withdraw my objection to this part).
