Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 19 Sep 2002 08:12:31 -0700 (PDT) | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Subject | Re: [patch] generic-pidhash-2.5.36-D4, BK-curr |
| |
On Thu, 19 Sep 2002, William Lee Irwin III wrote: > > I did this intentionally. Basically, sys_setsid() does the right thing, > but tty_ioctl() does not. There is already some inconsistency > about how task->tty is locked, and I'd not yet come to a conclusion.
I agree about the locking issue (although I do _not_ believe that the tasklock should have anything to do with the tsk->tty locking - it should most likely use some per-task lock for the actual tty accesses, together with the optimization that a write lock on the tasklock is sufficient to protect it because it means that nobody else can look up the task).
However, what I worry about is that there may not (will not) be a 1:1 session<->tty thing. In particular, when somebody creates a new session with "setsid()", that does not remove the tty from processes that used to hold it, I think (this is all from memory, so I might be wrong).
Which means that if the tty is going away, it has to be removed from _all_ tasks, not just from the one session that happened to be the most recent one.
Linus
- 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/
| |