[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2375c9f91001260045s7d01c427g64bc10f5bf4db4d@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 16:45:57 +0800
From: Américo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
"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 3:45 PM, KOSAKI Motohiro
<kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
> Hi
>
>> 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...
>
> I don't understand this issue at all. so, this is stupid dumb question.
> Why can't we write following code?
>
>
> enum pid_type type;
> struct pid *pid;
> if (!waitqueue_active(&tty->read_wait))
> tty->minimum_to_wake = 1;
> spin_lock_irqsave(&tty->ctrl_lock, flags);
> if (tty->pgrp) {
> pid = tty->pgrp;
> type = PIDTYPE_PGID;
> } else {
> pid = task_pid(current);
> type = PIDTYPE_PID;
> }
> get_pid(pid) // insert here
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&tty->ctrl_lock, flags);
> retval = __f_setown(filp, pid, type, 0);
> put_pid(pid) // insert here
>
Yeah, this seems reasonable for me, but not sure if this is the best fix.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists