On Wed, 2006-03-22 at 17:34 +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> You mean the "local lockowner being stable" is irrelevant.
>
> Yes that is true, but the patch not only makes the local lockowner
> stable, it makes the "owner" stable. And that is the important part
> for NFS, etc.
>
> The remote lockowner has to be derived from the owner, which used to
> be current->files, but is changed to current->file->owner.
>
> The fact that current->file->owner will remain stable across the exec
> will mean that locking will behave consistently for local _and_ remote
> filesystems.
>
> Now I'm not saying I want to keep this weird semantics of always
> inheriting locks on exec. All I'm saying that it's _possible_.
You'd have to ensure that none of the threads involved are able to grab
new posix locks in the period between the unsharing of current->files to
the moment when current->files->owner is swapped.
If not, one thread could in theory open a new file and grab a lock that
can never be unlocked because its lockowner gets stolen away from it by
another execing thread.
Cheers,
Trond
-
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]
