[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110920163805.GA20804@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 18:38:05 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.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 2/2] creds: __task_cred(current) doesn't need
rcu_read_lock_held()
On 09/20, David Howells wrote:
>
> Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> > Change __task_cred(task) to accept "task == current" without
> > rcu_read_lock_held(). This is what current_cred() currently does,
> > and with this change __task_cred() becomes more flexible/usable.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
>
> NAK!
>
> If you compare carefully:
>
> > - rcu_dereference_protected(current->cred, 1)
>
> and:
>
> > - rcu_dereference_check(__t->real_cred, 0); \
>
> you'll notice they aren't quite the same in one very fundamental way.
Do you mean that this patch adds the unnecessary ACCESS_ONCE +
smp_read_barrier_depends() to current_cred() or I missed something
else?
And what do you think about (__t == current) in __task_cred ?
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