Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 21 Apr 2009 10:35:58 -0700 (PDT) | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Subject | Re: Q: check_unsafe_exec() races (Was: [PATCH 2/4] fix setuid sometimes doesn't) |
| |
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > OK, I agree, it doesn't really matter from latency/etc pov. > > But still I can't understand why it is better to take fs->lock under > RCU lock. I mean, "fs->lock is the innermost lock" should not apply > to rcu_read_lock(). Because the latter is a bit special, no?
Oh, I don't think it matters. If you want to put the RCU read-lock innermost, that's fine by me. I just reacted to your latency argument as not being very strong :)
All I personally want is a patch that everybody can agree on, and that has sane semantics.
Linus
| |