[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <m1mz97athi.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 22:59:37 -0600
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] introduce get_task_pid() to fix unsafe get_pid()
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru> writes:
> On 09/10, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>
>> As for the functions can we build them in all 4 varieties.
>> struct pid *get_task_pid(struct task *);
>> struct pid *get_task_tgid(struct task *);
>> struct pid *get_task_pgrp(struct task *);
>> struct pid *get_task_session(struct task *);
>
> Something like the patch below?
Yes something like that. Although it doesn't provide for the
get_task_tgid case, and your patch only get_task_pid.
>> Either that or we can just drop in some rcu_read_lock() rcu_read_unlock()
>> into the call sites.
>
> Possible. I don't have a strong opinion, please feel free to send
> a different patch.
I just might. Coming up with an idiom that is hard to get wrong,
is desirable here, or at least with an idiom that is consistent.
I need to sleep on it before I can answer which way we handle that.
The pain with a new idiom is that I will have to update all of the
users so all of the examples in the kernel are consistent.
I might just need to do that anyway, but...
Eric
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists