[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <m1ejb56a7q.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 18:39:21 -0700
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, roland@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>,
Kamalesh Babulal <kamalesh@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: tty && pid problems
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> writes:
>> > *ping* - Any further activity on this one? I got bit by it as well on
>> > the very first attempted boot of 25-rc2-mm1, the instant it tried to leave
>> > single-user and go multi-user.
>>
>> Valdis, any chance you can try the
>> "[PATCH] (for -mm only) put_pid: make sure we don't free the live pid"
>> I sent? just to make sure we don't have other problems here.
>
> There is some other iffy locking of the pid objects ever since they were
> changed from pid_t to ref counted structs. Whoever did that didn't add
> any locking for it, and the old code knew it was "safe" not to.
>
> I've added locks in my test tree and now I've finally got -mm to build
> will do some testing then push more stuff upstream
Thanks. At the tty layer that was probably me.
Most of the instances already appear to be nested in some other kind of
locking, but that doesn't make no additional locking correct or ensure
that it will give a uniform result.
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