[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20100621190212.C8630400C5@magilla.sf.frob.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 12:02:12 -0700 (PDT)
From: Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Jerome Marchand <jmarchan@...hat.com>,
Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@...gle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...nel.org,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Subject: Re: while_each_thread() under rcu_read_lock() is broken?
> Paul, Roland, do you see any problems from the correctness pov,
> or a better fix for now?
>
> Perhaps it also makes sense to keep the old variant renamed to
> while_each_thread_locked(), I dunno.
Did we verify that only de_thread() can create the situation where a
while_each_thread-style loop without either lock can be confused? If
that's so, then just changing it to avoid the situation seems like it
would be less invasive overall.
Thanks,
Roland
--
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