On Wed, 2011-05-18 at 11:01 +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > diff --git a/fs/exec.c b/fs/exec.c
> > index 5e62d26..34fa611 100644
> > --- a/fs/exec.c
> > +++ b/fs/exec.c
> > @@ -998,17 +998,28 @@ static void flush_old_files(struct files_struct * files)
> >
> > char *get_task_comm(char *buf, struct task_struct *tsk)
> > {
> > - /* buf must be at least sizeof(tsk->comm) in size */
> > - task_lock(tsk);
> > + unsigned long flags;
> > +
> > + spin_lock_irqsave(&tsk->comm_lock, flags);
> > strncpy(buf, tsk->comm, sizeof(tsk->comm));
> > - task_unlock(tsk);
> > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&tsk->comm_lock, flags);
> > return buf;
> > }
> >
> > void set_task_comm(struct task_struct *tsk, char *buf)
> > {
> > + unsigned long flags;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * XXX - Even though comm is protected by comm_lock,
> > + * we take the task_lock here to serialize against
> > + * current users that directly access comm.
> > + * Once those users are removed, we can drop the
> > + * task locking& memsetting.
> > + */
>
> If we provide __get_task_comm(), we can't remove memset() forever.
True enough. I'll fix that comment up then.
>
> > task_lock(tsk);
> > + spin_lock_irqsave(&tsk->comm_lock, flags);
>
> This is strange order. task_lock() doesn't disable interrupt.
Strange order? Can you explain why you think that is? Having comm_lock
as an inner-most lock seems quite reasonable, given the limited nature
of what it protects.
> And, can you please document why we need interrupt disabling?
Since we might access current->comm from irq context. Where would you
like this documented? Just there in the code?
thanks
-john
--
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>