[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110920154015.GB17731@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 17:40:15 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge.hallyn@...onical.com>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, richard@....at,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] creds: kill __task_cred()->task_is_dead() check
On 09/20, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 04:39:42PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > --- 3.1/include/linux/cred.h~1_kill_task_is_dead 2011-09-20 16:28:22.000000000 +0200
> > +++ 3.1/include/linux/cred.h 2011-09-20 16:28:47.000000000 +0200
> > @@ -284,8 +284,7 @@ static inline void put_cred(const struct
> > #define __task_cred(task) \
> > ({ \
> > const struct task_struct *__t = (task); \
> > - rcu_dereference_check(__t->real_cred, \
> > - task_is_dead(__t)); \
> > + rcu_dereference_check(__t->real_cred, 0); \
>
> The "0" above will make lockdep-RCU complain unconditionally. My guess
> is that you want rcu_dereference_raw().
Hmm. I hope you are wrong this time ;)
rcu_dereference_check() checks rcu_read_lock_held(). IOW, with this
change __task_cred() always requires rcu_read_lock(), and this is
what the patch wants.
The next one adds " || (task == current" to the rcu_read_lock_held()
check above.
Oleg.
--
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