[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200801280343.27611.ak@suse.de>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 03:43:27 +0100
From: Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
To: "Steve French" <smfrench@...il.com>
Cc: Trond.Myklebust@...app.com, swhiteho@...hat.com, sfrench@...ba.org,
vandrove@...cvut.cz, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...l.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [8/18] BKL-removal: Remove BKL from remote_llseek
On Sunday 27 January 2008 17:57:14 Steve French wrote:
> Don't you need to a spinlock/spinunlock(i_lock) or something similar
> (there isn't a spinlock in the file struct unfortunately) around the
> reads and writes from f_pos in fs/read_write.c in remote_llseek with
> your patch since the reads/writes from that field are not necessarily
> atomic and threads could be racing in seek on the same file struct?
Funny that you mention it. I actually noticed this too while working on this,
but noticed that it is wrong everywhere (as in even plain sys_write/read gets
it wrong). So I decided to not address it because it is already
broken.
I did actually send email to a few people about this, but no answer
yet.
I agree it's probably all broken on 32bit platforms, but I'm not
sure how to best address this. When it is comprehensively addressed remote_llseek
can use that new method too.
-Andi
--
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