[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131002102037.GZ13318@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 11:20:37 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@...com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
"Chandramouleeswaran, Aswin" <aswin@...com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: spinlock contention of files->file_lock
On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 07:13:19AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 02:41:58PM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > > Maybe I am missing something obvious ?
> >
> > Yes. do_execve_common() starts with unshare_files(); there can be
> > no other thread capable of modifying that descriptor table.
>
> Btw., might the Android Binder:
>
> drivers/staging/android/binder.c: struct files_struct *files = proc->files;
> ...
> drivers/staging/android/binder.c: __fd_install(proc->files, fd, file);
> ...
> drivers/staging/android/binder.c: retval = __close_fd(proc->files, fd);
>
> violate that assumption?
Not unless your thread has managed to call an ioctl between entering
do_execve_common() and calling do_close_on_exec() ;-)
--
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