On Tue, Apr 03, 2012 at 09:10:20AM +0400, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
> Matt Helsley wrote:
> >On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 10:13:24PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >>On 03/31, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
> >>>
> >>>comment from v2.6.25-6245-g925d1c4 ("procfs task exe symlink"),
> >>>where all this stuff was introduced:
> >>>
> >>>>...
> >>>>This avoids pinning the mounted filesystem.
> >>>
> >>>So, this logic is hooked into every file mmap/unmmap and vma split/merge just to
> >>>fix some hypothetical pinning fs from umounting by mm which already unmapped all
> >>>its executable files, but still alive. Does anyone know any real world example?
> >>
> >>This is the question to Matt.
> >
> >This is where I got the scenario:
> >
> >https://lkml.org/lkml/2007/7/12/398
>
> Cyrill Gogcunov's patch "c/r: prctl: add ability to set new mm_struct::exe_file"
> gives userspace ability to unpin vfsmount explicitly.
Doesn't that break the semantics of the kernel ABI?
Cheers,
-Matt Helsley
--
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>