lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Aug]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC] Race condition?
Oliver Neukum wrote:
>>The root of the problem is that the reference count is being relied on
>>for the wrong thing. There is a race on p->user between the
>>dup_task_struct() and whenever the atomic_inc(&p->user->__count)
>>occcurs. The user reference count needs to be incremented in
>>dup_task_struct(), before the copy occurs.
>
> I don't get you. The user_struct can hardly go away while we are
> forking.

Good point. I was figuring that it could disappear when the task
clearly can't be exiting or setuid'ing while forking.

> IMHO you should add a spinlock to user_struct and take it.
> A clear solution that doesn't hurt the common case.

That _is_ a pretty clear solution. It looks like there are grand
plans for struct user, so it might come in handy in the future. But,
a spinlock _will_ hurt the common case. With the atomic incs, we have
2 of them in the common case and, at most, 4 in the failure case.
Adding a spinlock will require more lock instructions, which are the
most costly operations in either a spinlock or atomic op.

Either of these are _incredibly_ small prices to pay in any case.
Forks are slow anyway. A spinlock would be just fine with me.
--
Dave Hansen
haveblue@us.ibm.com

-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:27    [W:0.395 / U:0.044 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site