> The concept is ok to me. but AFAIK some caller are now using ARRAY_SIZE(tsk->comm).
> or sizeof(tsk->comm). Probably callers need to be changed too.
one more correction.
> void set_task_comm(struct task_struct *tsk, char *buf)
> {
> + char tmp_comm[TASK_COMM_LEN];
> +
> task_lock(tsk);
>
> + memcpy(tmp_comm, tsk->comm_buf, TASK_COMM_LEN);
> + tsk->comm = tmp;
> /*
> - * Threads may access current->comm without holding
> - * the task lock, so write the string carefully.
> - * Readers without a lock may see incomplete new
> - * names but are safe from non-terminating string reads.
> + * Make sure no one is still looking at tsk->comm_buf
> */
> - memset(tsk->comm, 0, TASK_COMM_LEN);
> - wmb();
> - strlcpy(tsk->comm, buf, sizeof(tsk->comm));
> + synchronize_rcu();
The doc says,
/**
* synchronize_rcu - wait until a grace period has elapsed.
*
And here is under spinlock.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>