[lkml]   [2006]   [Jul]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: tty's use of file_list_lock and file_move
    Ar Llu, 2006-07-10 am 13:27 -0400, ysgrifennodd Jon Smirl:
    > > Its explained in the comment in do_SAK.
    > This problem seems to be aggravated by reusing the tty_struct for that
    > tty. With the refcount patch it is now easy to disassociate an
    > existing tty (and the processes attached to it) from the array
    > tracking tty minors.

    The real problem is the rather deeper one - the lack of revoke(). Its
    possible to paper over that with SELinux but really we need revoke() and
    when you get revoke() you get the handle stuff cleaned up

    We hold file_list_lock because we have to find everyone using that tty
    and hang up their instance of it, then flip the file operations not
    because we need to protect against tty structs going away. It's needed
    in order to walk the file list and protects against the file list itself
    changing rather than the tty structs. It may well be possible to move
    that to a tty layer private lock with care, but it would need care to
    deal with VFS operations.

    We hold the ->files->file_lock because we have to walk other processes
    file tables in a safe fashion in SAK. That one is fairly clear.


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2006-07-10 19:49    [W:0.020 / U:2.420 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site