[lkml]   [2009]   [Apr]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: 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.


     \ /
      Last update: 2009-04-21 19:47    [W:0.020 / U:14.308 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site