lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Dec]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH 0/7]: Fix for unsafe notifier chain
Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 13 Dec 2005, Keith Owens wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 14:53:56 -0500 (EST),
> > Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote:
> > >The code below defines three new data structures: atomic_notifier_head,
> > >blocking_notifier_head, and raw_notifier_head. The first two correspond
> > >to what we had in the earlier patch, and raw_notifier_head is almost the
> > >same as the current implementation, with no locking or protection at all.
> >
> > Acked-By: Keith Owens <kaos@sgi.com>
> >
> > I do not care how this problem is fixed, I am happy with any solution that
> >
> > (a) stops notify chains being racy and
> > (b) allows users of notify_die() to be safely unloaded.
>
> Andrew, I've been waiting to hear back about this.

Was subconciously hoping it'd go away, I guess.

> Was that latest
> proposal (three separate types of notifier chains, each with its own API,
> one of them being completely raw) acceptable?

Yes, it looks sane enough.
-
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: 2005-12-14 00:39    [W:0.038 / U:0.084 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site