Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 8 Jan 2005 17:38:50 -0800 (PST) | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Subject | Re: 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/
| |