Re: [PATCH] protect remove_proc_entry

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


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().


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
Please read the FAQ at

[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]
  Powered by Linux