On 08/15, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Wed, 2012-08-15 at 15:01 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > BTW, set_task_comm()->wmb() and memset() should die. There are > > not needed afaics, and the comment is misleading. > > As long as we guarantee there's always a terminating '\0',
Yes, but we already have this guarantee? Unless of course some buggy code does something wrong with task->comm[], but nobody should do this. IOW, task->comm[TASK_COMM_LEN - 1] is always 0, no? > now strlcpy() > doesn't pad the result, afaics set_task_comm()->strlcpy() doesn't change the last byte too. > however if we initialize the ->comm to all 0s in > fork() fork() is special, yes. ->comm is copied by dup_task_struct() and the new task_struct can have everything in ->comm. But nobody can see the new task yet, and nobody can play with its ->comm. Or I misunderstood? > That barrier is indeed completely pointless as there's no pairing > barrier anywhere. Yes, agreed. 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/
