From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from out03.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.233]:34214 "EHLO out03.mta.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727264AbeISDyB (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Sep 2018 23:54:01 -0400 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) To: Oleg Nesterov Cc: Jeff Layton , viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, berrange@redhat.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20180914105310.6454-1-jlayton@kernel.org> <87a7ohs5ow.fsf@xmission.com> <20180917155948.GA25565@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2018 00:18:53 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20180917155948.GA25565@redhat.com> (Oleg Nesterov's message of "Mon, 17 Sep 2018 17:59:48 +0200") Message-ID: <87o9cuh2k2.fsf@xmission.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/3] exec: Moving unshare_files_struct Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Oleg Nesterov writes: > On 09/16, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> >> Oleg's patch to remove get_files_struct from proc means we don't need >> two counts in files_struct. > > So it seems you agree with this patch at least in general. I do I think in the context we are looking at things finding a way not to need to bump files_struct->count looks like it will simplify a lot of things and there are not many cases we need to consider. I have been thorough and mentioned the binder case and other case but that isn't because I disagree I simply don't want us to overlook weird or tricky cases. It appears that the more often that we look at these bits the better a solution we wind up writing. > OK, if nobody else objects I'll split this patch and send the series > tomorrow. No objection from me. >> Eric W. Biederman (3): >> exec: Move unshare_files down to avoid locks being dropped on exec. >> exec: Simplify unshare_files >> exec: Remove reset_files_struct > > Reviewed-by: Oleg Nesterov Eric