Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
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?
Let's wait for Andrew's response. And maybe somebody disagree with my changes.
--
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>