On Fri, 2005-12-30 at 15:46 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Steven Rostedt <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > +static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(remove_proc_lock);
> >
>
> I'll take a closer look at this next week.
>
> The official way of protecting the contents of a directory from concurrent
> lookup or modification is to take its i_sem. But procfs is totally weird
> and that approach may well not be practical here. We'd certainly prefer
> not to rely upon lock_kernel().
FWIW,
My test that would crash within two days has been running for three days
now with the lock_kernel patch. So, at least this fixes the problem,
whether we use another locking or not, it's good to know what to fix.
-- Steve
-
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]
