lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Aug]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: Bug: "bad unlock balance detected" 2.6.27-rc3-next-20080820
    On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 3:04 PM, David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> wrote:
    >> I couldn't reproduce your original failure, but I've attempted to fix
    >> it by reordering the mutex unlock and bprm free and removing the
    >> extraneous unlock (see attached patch; it boots for me without
    >> errors).
    >
    > Your patch ought to throw up its own lock failure. You've added a
    > mutex_unlock() call to the execve success path, but you haven't removed one
    > from install_exec_creds(). Also, this patch is not sufficient as it doesn't
    > do anything for compat_do_execve().

    Ah, right. Thanks for the review anyway :-)

    I didn't realize the lock should be held across the function call, I
    will do a bit more research next time :-)

    It seems to be a bit tricky. It would probably be nice to have
    somebody else look at it too and verify that it is now indeed correct?


    Vegard

    --
    "The animistic metaphor of the bug that maliciously sneaked in while
    the programmer was not looking is intellectually dishonest as it
    disguises that the error is the programmer's own creation."
    -- E. W. Dijkstra, EWD1036


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-08-22 15:59    [W:0.038 / U:63.692 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site