[lkml]   [2012]   [Apr]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC] situation with fput() locking (was Re: [PULL REQUEST] : ima-appraisal patches)
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 7:54 PM, Al Viro <> wrote:
> Umm...  I really wonder if we *want* filp_close() under any kind of
> locks.  You are right - it should not be deferred.  I haven't finished
> checking the callers of that puppy, but if we really do it while holding
> any kind of lock, we are asking for trouble.  So I'd rather switch
> filp_close() to use of fput_nodefer() if that turns out to be possible.

Ok, fair enough, looks like a reasonable plan to me.

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: 2012-04-20 05:01    [W:0.139 / U:4.364 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site