On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 01:46:03PM +0400, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote: > Cyrill Gorcunov wrote: > >On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 10:13:24PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > >> > >>Add Cyrill. This conflicts with > >>c-r-prctl-add-ability-to-set-new-mm_struct-exe_file.patch in -mm. > > > >Thanks for CC'ing, Oleg. I think if thise series go in it won't > >be a problem to update my patch accordingly. > > In this patch I leave mm->exe_file lockless. > After exec/fork we can change it only for current task and only if mm->mm_users == 1. > > something like this: > > task_lock(current); > if (atomic_read(¤t->mm->mm_users) == 1) > set_mm_exe_file(current->mm, new_file); > else > ret = -EBUSY; > task_unlock(current); > > task_lock() protect this code against get_task_mm() I see. Konstantin, the question is what is more convenient way to update the patch in linux-next. The c-r-prctl-add-ability-to-set-new-mm_struct-exe_file.patch is in -mm already, so I either should wait until Andrew pick your series up and send updating patch on top, or I could fetch your series, update my patch and send it here as reply. Hmm? Cyrill -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. 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>