Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 18:39:49 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>, James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
       Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>
Subject: ptrace && cred_exec_mutex (Was: [PATCH] ptrace:
	tracehook_unsafe_exec: remove the stale comment)
Message-ID: <20090424163949.GA12035@redhat.com>
References: <20090423212250.GA22537@redhat.com> <20090423232717.975ABFC3C7@magilla.sf.frob.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20090423232717.975ABFC3C7@magilla.sf.frob.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 652
Lines: 21

(change subject, add more CCs)

On 04/23, Roland McGrath wrote:
>
> > tracehook_unsafe_exec() doesn't need task_lock(), remove the old comment.
>
> Please make it instead say that cred_exec_mutex is held by the caller
> through the exec.

Yes. Except it looks like ->cred_exec_mutex is never used in fact.

ptrace_attach() takes current->cred_exec_mutex ? iow, ptrace and exec
use different locks ?

Oleg.

--
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/