> Do we really need the new MMF_DUMP_STARTED flag? We are holding ->mmap_sem,
> can't we check "mm->core_waiters != 0" instead?
Yes, I think you're right. I gave the old use of dumpable the benefit of
the doubt as being needed for synchronization, but that would be enough too.
> Hmm. Actually, do we need any check? If another thread (or CLONE_VM task)
> already started do_coredump(), we must see SIGNAL_GROUP_EXIT when we take
> ->mmap_sem. In that case coredump_wait() does nothing but returns -EAGAIN.
You're right again here. I'm sure the old use predates this checking in
zap_threads, so it's understandable that something different was needed for
this synchronization before.
> > - set_dumpable(mm, 0);
>
> Looks like this change is all we need, no? The only problem is that we
> return -EAGAIN if we race with another thread (the current code returns 0),
> but nobody checks the returned value.
I concur. It merits a comment at the coredump_wait call that this takes
care of all synchronization issues including races to enter do_coredump.
Thanks,
Roland
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
