[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20061123004053.76114a75.akpm@osdl.org>
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 00:40:53 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
To: Sébastien Dugué <sebastien.dugue@...l.net>
Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-aio <linux-aio@...ck.org>,
Suparna Bhattacharya <suparna@...ibm.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Zach Brown <zach.brown@...cle.com>,
Badari Pulavarty <pbadari@...ibm.com>,
Jean Pierre Dion <jean-pierre.dion@...l.net>,
Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm 3/4][AIO] - AIO completion signal notification
On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 09:28:05 +0100
Sébastien Dugué <sebastien.dugue@...l.net> wrote:
> > > + if (notify->notify == (SIGEV_SIGNAL|SIGEV_THREAD_ID)) {
> > > + /*
> > > + * This reference will be dropped in really_put_req() when
> > > + * we're done with the request.
> > > + */
> > > + get_task_struct(target);
> > > + }
> >
> > It worries me that this function can save away a task_struct* without
> > having taken a reference against it.
> >
>
> OK. Does moving 'notify->target = target;' after the get_task_struct() will
> do, or am I missing something more subtle?
Well it's your code - you tell me ;)
It is unsafe (and rather pointless) to be saving the address of some structure
which can be freed at any time.
-
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