Patch 3a3f61ce5e0b ("exec: Make sure task->comm is always NUL-terminated"),
replaced 'strscpy_pad()' with 'memcpy()' implementations inside
'__set_task_comm()'.
However a few left-over comments are still there, which mention
the usage of 'strscpy_pad()' inside '__set_task_comm()'.
Remove those obsolete comments.
While at it, also remove an obsolete comment regarding 'task_lock()'
usage while handing 'task->comm'.
Signed-off-by: Bhupesh <bhupesh@igalia.com>
---
include/linux/sched.h | 6 ++----
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
index 84449f847256..8bbd03f1b978 100644
--- a/include/linux/sched.h
+++ b/include/linux/sched.h
@@ -1156,10 +1156,8 @@ struct task_struct {
*
* - normally initialized begin_new_exec()
* - set it with set_task_comm()
- * - strscpy_pad() to ensure it is always NUL-terminated and
+ * - logic inside set_task_comm() will ensure it is always NUL-terminated and
* zero-padded
- * - task_lock() to ensure the operation is atomic and the name is
- * fully updated.
*/
char comm[TASK_COMM_LEN];
@@ -1965,7 +1963,7 @@ extern void __set_task_comm(struct task_struct *tsk, const char *from, bool exec
* User space can randomly change their names anyway, so locking for readers
* doesn't make sense. For writers, locking is probably necessary, as a race
* condition could lead to long-term mixed results.
- * The strscpy_pad() in __set_task_comm() can ensure that the task comm is
+ * The logic inside __set_task_comm() should ensure that the task comm is
* always NUL-terminated and zero-padded. Therefore the race condition between
* reader and writer is not an issue.
*
--
2.38.1