[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <m1vdhnzre4.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org>
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 05:58:43 -0800
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/11] sysctl: Separate the binary sysctl logic into it's own file.
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> writes:
> On Friday 06 November 2009, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> The primary proc path already doesn't need the lock_kernel(). My next
>> patch winds up killing the entire binary path and rebuilding on top of
>> /proc/sys. Which removes that lock_kernel().
>>
>> Which I think elegantly solves all of the sysctl BKL lock issues.
>
> Yes, that sounds like an excellent plan, but I'm not completely sure
> if the lack of the BKL in the procfs case is intentional. As a
> particular case that I stumbled over, 'core_pattern' is read
> with the BKL held to protect against sysctl changing it, but
> it is changed with proc_dostring without the BKL.
Then that is a bug. The bottom line is sys_sysctl never gets used
in practice, making the proc interface normative.
> Most uses of intvec or string seem to be racy and probably need
> a proper serialization method anyway.
That sounds familiar. Of course in practice the changes are rare
enough and are of static variables that don't get reallocated
that I would be surprised if the lack of lacking ever causes
more more than temporary strange behavior.
Eric
--
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