linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/7] containers (V7): Generic container system abstracted from cpusets code

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 13 Feb 2007 11:18:57 +0530
From:	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>
To:	"Paul Menage" <menage@...gle.com>
Cc:	akpm@...l.org, pj@....com, sekharan@...ibm.com, dev@...ru,
	xemul@...ru, serue@...ibm.com, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
	ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	rohitseth@...gle.com, mbligh@...gle.com, winget@...gle.com,
	containers@...ts.osdl.org, devel@...nvz.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] containers (V7): Generic container system abstracted from cpusets code

On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 11:46:20AM -0800, Paul Menage wrote:
> On further reflection, this probably would be safe after all. Since we
> don't call put_container_group() in attach_task() until after
> synchronize_rcu() completes, that implies that a container_group_get()
> from the RCU section would have already completed. So we should be
> fine.

Right.

Which make me wonder why we need task_lock() at all ..I can understand
the need for a lock like that if we are reading/updating multiple words
in task_struct under the lock. In this case, it is used to read/write
just one pointer, isnt it? I think it can be eliminated all-together
with the use of RCU.


-- 
Regards,
vatsa
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/