On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 9:10 PM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 03/24, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
>>
>> On 23.03.2015 22:10, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> Not so safe: this will race with get_task_mm().
>
> How?
I mean rcu/lockdep debug migh race with get_task_mm() and generate
false-positive warning about non-protected rcu_dereference.
>
> If set_mm_exe_file() can race with get_task_mm() then we have a bug.
> And it will be reported ;)
>
>> A lot of proc files grab temporary reference to task mm.
>> But this just a debug -- we can place here "true".
>
> Yeees, probably rcu_dereference_raw() would be even better. set_mm_exe_file()
> must be called only if nobody but us can access this mm.
Yep.
>
> 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>
--
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>