Re: +c-r-prctl-add-ability-to-set-new-mm_struct-exe_file-update-after-mm-num_exe_file_vmas-removal.patch added to -mm tree

From: Oleg Nesterov
Date: Thu Apr 19 2012 - 18:10:01 EST

On 04/20, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> Guys, while I more-less agree with Matt about single-shot behaviour
> [ let me copy my and his email
> >> With mm->exe_file this prctl option become a one-shot
> >> only, and while at moment our user-space tool can perfectly
> >> live with that I thought that there is no strict need to
> >> limit the option this way from the very beginning.
> >>
> > As far as backward compatibility, isn't it better to lift that restriction
> > later rather than add it? I think the latter would very likely "break"
> > things whereas the former would not.
> >
> > I also prefer that restriction because it establishes a bound on how
> > frequently the symlink can change. Keeping it a one-shot deal makes the
> > values that show up in tools like top more reliable for admins.
> ]
> I guess maybe it's time to drop one-shot requirement and as result
> we can drop MMF_EXE_FILE_CHANGED bit completely,

Plus perhaps we can remove this for_each_vma check?

> making overall code
> simplier?

Personally I'd certainly prefer this ;)

But let me repeat to avoid the confusion. I am fine either way,
I am not going to discuss this again unless I see something which
looks technically wrong. And the current MMF_EXE_FILE_CHANGED
doesn't look right even if the problem is minor.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at