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 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/
