From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] export get_task_comm()
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>,
       Kyle McMartin <kyle@infradead.org>,
       Christoph Bartelmus <lirc@bartelmus.de>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
       Andy Whitcroft <apw@shadowen.org>
In-Reply-To: <20090127010035.18521a3b.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
References: <20090127084956.GA8416@x200.localdomain> <20090127010035.18521a3b.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Message-Id: <20090127191413.D488.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 19:15:52 +0900 (JST)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 999
Lines: 29

> > > It's worth a checkpatch rule, I guess: "direct access to
> > > task_struct.comm is racy - use get_task_comm()".
> > 
> > And majority of usages is some debugging printk where nobody cares if ->comm
> > corrupted.
> > 
> > Changelog says is useful for debugging. That's right, tsk->comm is useful
> > for debugging, not allocating temporary buffer + get_task_comm().
> > 
> > Some ->comm usages are for kernel threads which never change it, for starters.
> > 
> > current->comm is always safe, because, current is not executing prctl(2)! 
> 
> That's a good point.
> 
> > I'd say nothing should be done and, heavens forbid, adding this to checkpatch.pl.
> 
> hm, yeah, OK, I'll drop it.

Oh, I have to agree Alexey because he is always right ;)


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/