Keith Owens <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 18:27:25 +0100,
> Andi Kleen <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 02:59:05AM +1100, Keith Owens wrote:
> >> On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 14:47:36 +0100,
> >> Andi Kleen <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >akpm wrote
> >> >> - Introduce a new notifier API which is wholly unlocked
> >> >
> >> >The old notifiers were already wholly unlocked.
The register and unregister functions take a write_lock on notifier_lock.
notifier_call_chain() runs unlocked.
> So it wouldn't
> >> >even need any changes. Just additional locks everywhere.
> >>
> >> Wrong.
> >
> >Did you actually read what I wrote?
>
> Of course I did.
No you didn't!
> The whole point is that _ALL_ of the existing
> notifier chain callback code is racy[*].
yup.
> Saying that the code can be
> left without any changes is simply ignoring the existing races. They
> _ALL_ need to be fixed.
We're saying that kernel/sys.c:notifier_lock should be removed and that all
callers of notifier_chain_register(), notifier_chain_unregister() and
notifier_call_chain() should be changed to define and use their own lock.
So the _callers_ get to decide whether they're going to use down(),
spin_lock(), down_read(), read_lock(), preempt_disable(), local_irq_disable()
or whatever.
Furthermore we should alter notifier_call_chain() so that a callback may
safely perform notifier_chain_unregister() - that's sane and easy enough.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
