[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1305596867.2915.109.camel@work-vm>
Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 18:47:47 -0700
From: John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
To: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...il.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "Ted Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] comm: Introduce comm_lock seqlock to protect
task->comm access
On Tue, 2011-05-17 at 00:01 +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 05/16/2011 11:19 PM, John Stultz wrote:
> > diff --git a/include/linux/init_task.h b/include/linux/init_task.h
> > index caa151f..b69d94b 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/init_task.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/init_task.h
> > @@ -161,6 +161,7 @@ extern struct cred init_cred;
> > .group_leader = &tsk, \
> > RCU_INIT_POINTER(.real_cred, &init_cred), \
> > RCU_INIT_POINTER(.cred, &init_cred), \
> > + .comm_lock = __SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED(tsk.comm_lock), \
>
> Hmm, you should also init the spinlock somewhere in copy_process.
> Otherwise when a process is forked in the middle of [gs]et_task_comm
> called on it on another cpu, you have two locked locks and only the
> parent's will be unlocked, right?
Ah, yep. Fixed for the next version.
thanks!
-john
--
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