[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <19f34abd0808220656x42006849ta29c423beb6bb7d4@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 15:56:24 +0200
From: "Vegard Nossum" <vegard.nossum@...il.com>
To: "David Howells" <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: "jay kumar" <jaykumarks@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-next@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Bug: "bad unlock balance detected" 2.6.27-rc3-next-20080820
On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 3:04 PM, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> wrote:
>> I couldn't reproduce your original failure, but I've attempted to fix
>> it by reordering the mutex unlock and bprm free and removing the
>> extraneous unlock (see attached patch; it boots for me without
>> errors).
>
> Your patch ought to throw up its own lock failure. You've added a
> mutex_unlock() call to the execve success path, but you haven't removed one
> from install_exec_creds(). Also, this patch is not sufficient as it doesn't
> do anything for compat_do_execve().
Ah, right. Thanks for the review anyway :-)
I didn't realize the lock should be held across the function call, I
will do a bit more research next time :-)
It seems to be a bit tricky. It would probably be nice to have
somebody else look at it too and verify that it is now indeed correct?
Vegard
--
"The animistic metaphor of the bug that maliciously sneaked in while
the programmer was not looking is intellectually dishonest as it
disguises that the error is the programmer's own creation."
-- E. W. Dijkstra, EWD1036
--
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