On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 12:51:46PM +1000, Neil Brown wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 22:33:15 -0400
> "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> sched.h says:
>
> char comm[TASK_COMM_LEN]; /* executable name excluding path
> - access with [gs]et_task_comm (which lock
> it with task_lock())
> - initialized normally by setup_new_exec */
>
> So we should lock...
>
> But then fs/exec.c says:
> void set_task_comm(struct task_struct *tsk, char *buf)
> {
> task_lock(tsk);
>
> /*
> * Threads may access current->comm without holding
> * the task lock, so write the string carefully.
> * Readers without a lock may see incomplete new
> * names but are safe from non-terminating string reads.
> */
> .....
>
> So I guess we are safe to use it unlocked for informational purposes.
> That first comment could do with an update, and where-ever it was that I
> copied that code from can probably be simplified too.....
Sounds good.
I've added a quick modular build to my test scripts too, so hopefully
that sort of problem won't slip past me next time....
--b.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
