On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 03:50:27PM +0100, David Howells wrote: > Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote: > > > Al, David, any bright ideas on how to best fix this? > > Have the seq_xxx() code throw an error if current->in_execve is true. I can't > think of any circumstance where execve() should be reading anything that uses > seq_xxx().
*cringe* I don't like it. That really should be a responsiblity of specific ->show(); "I'm going to take that mutex, bugger off if we are in execve()" makes a lot more sense than having e.g. seq_read() care of that. IOW, I would very much prefer the patch you've sent last week. And yes, it might leave lockdep false positives, but that's better dealt with by annotating the sucker ("this guy has a separate lockdep class for its ->lock"). E.g. by splitting proc_single_file_operations in two and having the one used for those files do lockdep_set_class() in its ->open(). -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/