On 03/16, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
>
> +/**
> + * set_mm_exe_file - change a reference to the mm's executable file
> + *
> + * This changes mm's executale file (shown as symlink /proc/[pid]/exe).
> + *
> + * Main users are mmput(), sys_execve() and sys_prctl(PR_SET_MM_MAP/EXE_FILE).
> + * Callers prevent concurrent invocations: in mmput() nobody alive left,
> + * in execve task is single-threaded, prctl holds mmap_sem exclusively.
> + */
> void set_mm_exe_file(struct mm_struct *mm, struct file *new_exe_file)
> {
> + struct file *old_exe_file = rcu_dereference_protected(mm->exe_file,
> + !atomic_read(&mm->mm_users) || current->in_execve ||
> + lock_is_held(&mm->mmap_sem));
> +
> if (new_exe_file)
> get_file(new_exe_file);
> - if (mm->exe_file)
> - fput(mm->exe_file);
> - mm->exe_file = new_exe_file;
> + rcu_assign_pointer(mm->exe_file, new_exe_file);
> + if (old_exe_file)
> + fput(old_exe_file);
> }
Yes, I think this is correct, __fput() does call_rcu(file_free_rcu). And
much better than the new lock ;)
Acked-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx>
So I think the patch is fine, but personally I dislike the "prctl holds
mmap_sem exclusively" and rcu_dereference_protected().
I mean, I think we can do another cleanup on top of this change.
1. set_mm_exe_file() should be called by exit/exec only, so
it should use
rcu_dereference_protected(mm->exe_file,
atomic_read(&mm->mm_users) <= 1);
2. prctl() should not use it, it can do
get_file(new_exe);
old_exe = xchg(&mm->exe_file);
if (old_exe)
fput(old_exe);
3. and we can remove down_write(mmap_sem) from prctl paths.
Actually we can do this even without xchg() above, but we might
want to kill MMF_EXE_FILE_CHANGED and test_and_set_bit() check.
What do you think?
Oleg.
--
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>