[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090804171905.GA9080@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 19:19:05 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, eranian@...il.com,
mingo@...e.hu, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
robert.richter@....com, paulus@...ba.org, andi@...stfloor.org,
mpjohn@...ibm.com, cel@...ibm.com, cjashfor@...ibm.com,
mucci@...s.utk.edu, terpstra@...s.utk.edu,
perfmon2-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, mtk.manpages@...glemail.com,
roland@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/2 -v3] fcntl: F_[SG]ETOWN_EX
On 08/04, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 18:20 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> > > + rcu_read_lock();
> > > + pid = find_vpid(owner.pid);
> > > + ret = __f_setown(filp, pid, type, 1);
> > > + rcu_read_unlock();
> > > +
> > > + return ret;
> >
> > Perhaps it makes sense to return -ESRCH if owner.pid && !pid, not
> > sure.
>
> We'd need that case to unset/clear the owner, so returning -ESRCH might
> confuse users I think.
Agreed. Perhaps we should do nothing but return -ESRCH if user passes
owner->pid != 0 and it is not valid.
But this is minor and can be tweaked later. (and to clarify again, not
that I really think we should do this, just a random thought).
> How about the below delta, it changes send_sigurg_to_task() to also use
> do_send_sig_info() which looses the check_kill_permission() check, but
> your previous changes lost that same thing from SIGIO -- so I'm hoping
> that's ok.
Yes, I think this is fine!
Oleg.
--
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