Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] mm: Add optional close() to struct vm_special_mapping
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date: 2024-09-02 21:03:16
Also in:
linux-mm, linux-s390, linux-um, lkml
Possibly related (same subject, not in this thread)
- 2024-09-03 · Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] mm: Add optional close() to struct vm_special_mapping · Sven Schnelle <svens@linux.ibm.com>
- 2024-08-21 · Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] mm: Add optional close() to struct vm_special_mapping · Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
- 2024-08-20 · Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] mm: Add optional close() to struct vm_special_mapping · Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
- 2024-08-20 · Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] mm: Add optional close() to struct vm_special_mapping · Rob Landley <hidden>
- 2024-08-20 · Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] mm: Add optional close() to struct vm_special_mapping · Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
On Mon, 2 Sept 2024 at 13:49, Andrew Morton [off-list ref] wrote:
uprobe_clear_state() is a pretty simple low-level thing. Side-effects seem unlikely?
I think uprobe_clear_state() should be removed from fork.c entirely,
made 'static', and then we'd have
area->xol_mapping.close = uprobe_clear_state;
in __create_xol_area() instead (ok, the arguments change, instead of
looking up "mm->uprobes_state.xol_area", it would get it as the vma
argument)
That's how it should always have been, except we didn't have a close() function.
Hmm?
Linus