[lkml]   [2008]   [Aug]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Bug: "bad unlock balance detected" 2.6.27-rc3-next-20080820
On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 3:04 PM, David Howells <> 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?


"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:0.031 / U:0.180 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site