lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Jan]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: uselib() & 2.6.X?


    On Sat, 8 Jan 2005, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
    >
    > > No, I'd just fix them up.
    >
    > What do you mean by "fix them up" ? With your minimal fix the other do_brk() callers
    > do not have the lock, you dont mean "fix" by grabbing the lock?

    I'm saying that if we decide to do the debugging warning (and I think
    everybody is agreeing that we should), then we _will_ fix it by just
    grabbing the lock in all the paths. That's what we already did with
    do_mmap(), after all.

    I suspect it's not strictly needed, but as Alan has said, even though
    nothing else can chaneg the vma's at the same time, it's the right thing
    to do to keep /proc reads happy (which _can_ happen) anyway. And more
    importantly, invariants are nice - to the point where it's good to follow
    the rules even if it might not be strictly necessary.

    I just wanted to keep these two issues separate. I think it's one thing to
    fix a known bug, and another thing to add some debug infrastructure to
    make sure that it doesn't happen in the future. So I think the WARN_ON() +
    adding of extra locking is a separate stage from fixing the known problem.

    Linus
    -
    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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-11-18 23:46    [W:4.037 / U:0.388 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site