On Mon, 03 Mar 2014 16:59:38 -0800 Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > >...
> > >
> > > +static bool vmacache_valid(struct mm_struct *mm)
> > > +{
> > > + struct task_struct *curr = current;
> > > +
> > > + if (mm != curr->mm)
> > > + return false;
> >
> > What's going on here? Handling a task poking around in someone else's
> > mm? I'm thinking "__access_remote_vm", but I don't know what you were
> > thinking ;) An explanatory comment would be revealing.
>
> I don't understand the doubt here. Seems like a pretty obvious thing to
> check -- yes it's probably unlikely but we certainly don't want to be
> validating the cache on an mm that's not ours... or are you saying it's
> redundant??
Well it has to be here for a reason and I'm wondering that that reason
is. If nobody comes here with a foreign mm then let's remove it. Or
perhaps stick a WARN_ON_ONCE() in there to detect the unexpected. If
there _is_ a real reason, let's write that down.
> And no, we don't want __access_remote_vm() here.
__access_remote_vm doesn't look at the vma cache, so scrub that
explanation.
--
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>