[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081008110243.GN7971@one.firstfloor.org>
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 13:02:43 +0200
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>,
Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH, v3] shmat: introduce flag SHM_MAP_NOT_FIXED
On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 11:20:37AM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > That is racy when multi threaded because shmat() doesn't replace, so you
> > would need to munmap() inbetween and someone else could steal the area
> > then. Yes you could stick a loop around it. It could livelock.
> > No, it's not a good interface I would advocate.
>
> You could just use pthread mutexes in your application. The rĂ´le of the
malloc() can call mmap, so that would require putting a mutex around
each malloc(). Good luck finding them all.
> kernel is not to provide nappies for people who think programming is too
> hard but to provide services that can be used to build applications.
Outsourcing kernel locking to user space is not the way to go.
-Andi
--
ak@...ux.intel.com
--
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