[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:0.233 / U:32.588 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site