[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090102182757.GF28946@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 18:27:57 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, bfields@...ldses.org,
xfs-masters@....sgi.com, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [xfs-masters] RFC: Fix f_flags races without the BKL
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 01:50:50PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 04:13:52AM -0700, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> > Accesses to the f_flags field have always involved a read-modify-write
> > operation, and have always been racy in the absence of the BKL. The recent
> > BKL-removal work made this problem worse, but it has been there for a very
> > long time. The race is quite small, and, arguably, has never affected
> > anybody, but it's still worth fixing.
> >
> > After pondering for a while, I couldn't come up with anything better than a
> > global file->f_flags mutex. There's no point in bloating struct file with
> > a mutex just for this purpose; it's hard to imagine that there will be any
> > real contention for this lock.
>
> What speaks against having on in fs_struct so that it's at least not
> globally serialized?
WTF? References to struct file can be shared by tasks with different
associated fs_struct; how the devil can that ever work?
--
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