From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1753879Ab2DWO6V (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 23 Apr 2012 10:58:21 -0400
Received: from a.ns.miles-group.at ([95.130.255.143]:47835 "EHLO radon.swed.at"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1751812Ab2DWO6U (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 23 Apr 2012 10:58:20 -0400
Message-ID: <4F956DF2.7020408@nod.at>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 16:57:54 +0200
From: Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120312 Thunderbird/11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Anton Vorontsov <anton.vorontsov@linaro.org>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
        Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
        Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mundt <lethal@linux-sh.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
        KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
        John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        uclinux-dist-devel@blackfin.uclinux.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
        linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
        linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, patches@linaro.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/9] um: Should hold tasklist_lock while traversing processes
References: <20120423070641.GA27702@lizard> <20120423070925.GG30752@lizard>
In-Reply-To: <20120423070925.GG30752@lizard>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 23.04.2012 09:09, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
> Traversing the tasks requires holding tasklist_lock, otherwise it
> is unsafe.
>
> p.s. However, I'm not sure that calling os_kill_ptraced_process()
> in the atomic context is correct. It seem to work, but please
> take a closer look.
>
> Signed-off-by: Anton Vorontsov<anton.vorontsov@linaro.org>
> ---

You forgot my Ack and I've already explained why 
os_kill_ptraced_process() is fine.

Thanks,
//richard