[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0904211032191.2199@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 10:35:58 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
cc: Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>, Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Joe Malicki <jmalicki@...acarta.com>,
Michael Itz <mitz@...acarta.com>,
Kenneth Baker <bakerk@...acarta.com>,
Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Q: check_unsafe_exec() races (Was: [PATCH 2/4] fix setuid
sometimes doesn't)
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> OK, I agree, it doesn't really matter from latency/etc pov.
>
> But still I can't understand why it is better to take fs->lock under
> RCU lock. I mean, "fs->lock is the innermost lock" should not apply
> to rcu_read_lock(). Because the latter is a bit special, no?
Oh, I don't think it matters. If you want to put the RCU read-lock
innermost, that's fine by me. I just reacted to your latency argument as
not being very strong :)
All I personally want is a patch that everybody can agree on, and that
has sane semantics.
Linus
--
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