[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTineVrcffFWGxQ+EzYno6xvcNS9=M7hn_KddASnQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 09:16:16 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cred - synchronize rcu before releasing cred
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 8:50 AM, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> got no objections on linux-security-module and acked by David.
> Noone pick it, so got advice to send this directly to you.
The patch seems fundamentally buggy.
The whole patch seems to be based on "nobody can ever use
get_cred/put_cred, because concurrent use will then trigger the
BUG_ON() in __put_cred()".
But that's a bug in general, not in this particular usage that isn't
all that different from other uses. So rather than just remove the
code that uses the refcounting, we should either:
- FIX the damn ref-counting so that it works without bugging out
or
- remove the broken functions entirely.
In other words - why are we working around what looks like a bug,
rather than fixing the bug itself?
In particular, the code you remove seems to be basically _identical_
to get_task_cred(). So if the code you remove is buggy, then so is any
use of get_task_cred() - no?
So please explain why get_task_cred() is ok, but the particular use of
get_cred/put_cred that you removed is not.
Hmm? What am I missing?
Linus
--
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