[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:0.081 / U:1.216 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site