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    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site