[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090313134139.GB32304@us.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 08:41:39 -0500
From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>
To: Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] devcgroup: avoid using cgroup_lock
Quoting Li Zefan (lizf@...fujitsu.com):
> >> @@ -426,11 +431,11 @@ static int devcgroup_access_write(struct cgroup *cgrp, struct cftype *cft,
> >> const char *buffer)
> >> {
> >> int retval;
> >> - if (!cgroup_lock_live_group(cgrp))
> >
> > Does it matter that we no longer check for cgroup_is_removed()?
> >
>
> No, this means in a rare case that the write handler is called when the cgroup
> is dead, we still do the update work instead of returning ENODEV.
>
> This is ok, since at that time, accessing cgroup and devcgroup is still valid,
> but will have no effect since there is no task in this cgroup and the cgroup
> will be destroyed soon.
Ok, just wanted to make sure the devcgroup couldn't be partially torn
down and risking NULL or freed-memory derefs...
BTW is that against linux-next? (didn't seem to apply cleanly against
my 2.6.29-rc9) I guess I'd like to do a little test before acking,
though it looks ok based on your answer.
thanks,
-serge
--
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