On 03/23, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>
> 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));
> + !atomic_read(&mm->mm_users) || current->in_execve);
Thanks, looks correct at first glance...
But can't we remove the ->in_execve check above? and check
atomic_read(&mm->mm_users) <= 1
instead. OK, this is subjective, I won't insist. Just current->in_execve
looks a bit confusing, it means "I swear, the caller is flush_old_exec()
and this mm is actualy bprm->mm".
"atomic_read(&mm->mm_users) <= 1" looks a bit more "safe". But again,
I won't insist.
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>