Messages in this thread |  | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] protect remove_proc_entry | | From | Arjan van de Ven <> | | Date | Sat, 31 Dec 2005 09:34:21 +0100 |
| |
On Sat, 2005-12-31 at 01:58 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Fri, 30 Dec 2005, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote: > > > > > > +static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(remove_proc_lock); > > > > > > > I'll take a closer look at this next week. > > > > The official way of protecting the contents of a directory from concurrent > > lookup or modification is to take its i_sem. But procfs is totally weird > > and that approach may well not be practical here. We'd certainly prefer > > not to rely upon lock_kernel(). > > > > Yeah, I thought about using the sem (or mutex ;) but remove_proc_entry is > used so darn much around the kernel, I wasn't sure it's not used in irq > context.
it can't be; "anything-VFS" like this can sleep if the file is busy etc etc.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |