[lkml]   [2005]   [Dec]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    Patch in this message
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] protect remove_proc_entry
    On Fri, 2005-12-30 at 13:55 -0800, Mitchell Blank Jr wrote:
    > Steven Rostedt wrote:
    > > I've added a global remove_proc_lock to protect this section of code. I
    > > was going to add a lock to proc_dir_entry so that the locking is only
    > > cut down to the same parent, but since this function is called so
    > > infrequently, why waste more memory then is needed. One global lock
    > > should not cause too much of a headache here.
    > Are you sure that it's the only place where we need guard ->subdir? It
    > looks like proc_lookup() and proc_readdir() use the BLK when walking that
    > list, so probably the best fix would be to use that lock everywhere else
    > ->subdir is touched

    Good point.

    God, we should be getting rid of the stupid BKL, not add more. But
    seeing that this is what is used to protect that list, I guess I'll add

    I'm also assuming that interrupt context wont use this.

    -- Steve

    Index: linux-2.6.15-rc7/fs/proc/generic.c
    --- linux-2.6.15-rc7.orig/fs/proc/generic.c 2005-12-30 14:19:39.000000000 -0500
    +++ linux-2.6.15-rc7/fs/proc/generic.c 2005-12-30 17:05:56.000000000 -0500
    @@ -693,6 +693,8 @@
    if (!parent && xlate_proc_name(name, &parent, &fn) != 0)
    goto out;
    len = strlen(fn);
    + lock_kernel();
    for (p = &parent->subdir; *p; p=&(*p)->next ) {
    if (!proc_match(len, fn, *p))
    @@ -713,6 +715,7 @@
    + unlock_kernel();

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-12-30 23:11    [W:0.019 / U:2.832 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site