Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 7 Jun 2004 23:53:47 +0100 | From | viro@parcelfa ... | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Missing BKL in sys_chroot() for 2.6 |
| |
On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 11:56:37AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Sun, 6 Jun 2004, BlaisorBlade wrote: > > > > (PLEASE cc me on replies as I'm not subscribed). > > > > Set_fs_root *claims* it wants the BKL held: > > I think the set_fs_root() comment is just wrong. > > We properly lock the accesses to root/rootmnt with "fs->lock", and in fact > no other users will have the BKL when accessing them anyway, so I don't > see what the BKL would help in this case. > > However, from a quick grep of users, it does look like some other users > aren't real careful with "fs->lock" (ie chroot_fs_refs() looks like it > could have problems - probably purely theoretical). > > Al, do your eagle-eyes see something I missed?
chroot_fs_refs() is OK - it's a part of pivot_root(2) and it's just as "if process looks like the have root and/or cwd in old root, we assume they want to have those flipped to new one; if they are not, assume that they know what they are doing and wouldn't like us to pull anything on them". IOW, here we don't really care.
selinux open_devnull(), OTOH, is bogus - they already have an fs of their own that is not going away; so why not put the damn device node on it and be done with that?
In any case, BKL is irrelevant - that comment should've been dropped a long time ago. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |