Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 31 Mar 2013 09:45:37 -0400 | From | Rik van Riel <> | Subject | Re: ipc,sem: sysv semaphore scalability |
| |
On 03/31/2013 01:01 AM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> diff --git a/ipc/sem.c b/ipc/sem.c > index f257afe..74cedfe 100644 > --- a/ipc/sem.c > +++ b/ipc/sem.c > @@ -1867,8 +1867,7 @@ void exit_sem(struct task_struct *tsk) > struct sem_array *sma; > struct sem_undo *un; > struct list_head tasks; > - int semid; > - int i; > + int semid, i; > > rcu_read_lock(); > un = list_entry_rcu(ulp->list_proc.next, > @@ -1884,12 +1883,13 @@ void exit_sem(struct task_struct *tsk) > } > > sma = sem_obtain_object_check(tsk->nsproxy->ipc_ns, un->semid);
Should we use "semid" here, like Linus suggested, instead of "un->semid"?
> - sem_lock(sma, NULL, -1); > - > /* exit_sem raced with IPC_RMID, nothing to do */ > - if (IS_ERR(sma)) > + if (IS_ERR(sma)) { > + rcu_read_unlock(); > continue; > + } > > + sem_lock(sma, NULL, -1); > un = __lookup_undo(ulp, semid); > if (un == NULL) { > /* exit_sem raced with IPC_RMID+semget() that created >
-- All rights reversed.
| |