[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090102184232.GH28946@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 18:42:32 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, bfields@...ldses.org,
xfs-masters@....sgi.com
Subject: Re: RFC: Fix f_flags races without the BKL
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.
Bloating with mutex is over the top, indeed, but why can't we simply keep
a pointer to fasync_struct in there? Do we ever have a struct file with
several fasync_struct? They'd have to be on different queues and I don't
see any cases where that would happen...
--
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