[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5820.1316537404@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 17:50:04 +0100
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, "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()
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
> > > - 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?
Something else. The current_cred() uses ->cred:
* current_cred - Access the current task's subjective credentials
and __task_cred() uses ->real_cred:
* __task_cred - Access a task's objective credentials
Ordinarily both pointers will point to the same set of creds, but this change
will break anything that uses override_creds() + revert_creds() such as
faccessat() and fscache.
David
--
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