linux-kernel - Re: lguest, Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23

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]

Message-Id: <1184210118.6005.719.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Thu, 12 Jul 2007 13:15:18 +1000
From:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	hch@....de, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: lguest, Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23

On Wed, 2007-07-11 at 19:51 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
> Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 12:48:41 +1000
> 
> > We drop the lock after I/O, and then do this wakeup.  Meanwhile the
> > other task might have exited.
> 
> I already understand what you're doing.
> 
> Is it possible to use exit notifiers to handle this case?
> That's what I'm trying to suggest. :)

Sure, the process has /dev/lguest open, so I can do something in the
close routine.  Instead of keeping a reference to the tsk, I can keep a
reference to the struct lguest (currently it doesn't have or need a
refcnt).  Then I need another lock, to protect lg->tsk.

This seems like a lot of dancing to avoid one export.  If it's that
important I'd far rather drop the code and do a normal wakeup under the
big lguest lock for 2.6.23.

Cheers,
Rusty.

-
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/