Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] protect remove_proc_entry | From | Steven Rostedt <> | Date | Mon, 02 Jan 2006 08:02:01 -0500 |
| |
On Fri, 2005-12-30 at 15:46 -0800, 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().
FWIW,
My test that would crash within two days has been running for three days now with the lock_kernel patch. So, at least this fixes the problem, whether we use another locking or not, it's good to know what to fix.
-- Steve
- 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/
| |