[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100126065426.GG19799@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 06:54:26 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Am??rico Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Tavis Ormandy <taviso@...gle.com>,
Jeff Dike <jdike@...toit.com>, Julien Tinnes <jln@...gle.com>,
Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [2.6.33-rc5] starting emacs makes lockdep warning
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 02:24:30PM +0800, Am??rico Wang wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 2:07 PM, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 02:01:12PM +0800, Am??rico Wang wrote:
> >
> >> I agree, it seems that patch is useless, since we already
> >> do lock_kernel() before calling __f_setown()...
> >
> > What's to prevent pid from being freed under us? ??BKL won't...
> >
>
> Hmm, I don't fully understand the race here. If it is used to protect
> 'pid' which we get from 'tty->pgrp' or 'current', in the former case,
> it is protected by 'tty->ctrl_lock', in the later case, it doesn't need
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Without that patch it isn't.
> the lock. So it's not necessary to protect 'pid' by 'tty->crtl_lock'.
--
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