>>> >From 7ed7f53bb597e8cb40d9ac91ce16142fb60f1e93 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>> From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxx>
>>> Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 10:22:54 +0100
>>> Subject: [PATCH] memcg: fix memcg_cache_name() to use cgroup_name()
>>>
>>> As cgroup supports rename, it's unsafe to dereference dentry->d_name
>>> without proper vfs locks. Fix this by using cgroup_name() rather than
>>> dentry directly.
>>>
>>> Also open code memcg_cache_name because it is called only from
>>> kmem_cache_dup which frees the returned name right after
>>> kmem_cache_create_memcg makes a copy of it. Such a short-lived
>>> allocation doesn't make too much sense. So replace it by a static
>>> buffer as kmem_cache_dup is called with memcg_cache_mutex.
>>>
>>
>> I doubt it's a win to add 4K to kernel text size instead of adding
>> a few extra lines of code... but it's up to you.
>
> I will leave the decision to Glauber. The updated version which uses
> kmalloc for the static buffer is bellow.
>
I don't have strong preference. Glauber, what's your opinion?
...
> static struct kmem_cache *kmem_cache_dup(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
> struct kmem_cache *s)
> {
> - char *name;
> struct kmem_cache *new;
> + static char *tmp_name = NULL;
(minor nitpick) why not preserve the name "name"
--
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/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>