On 08/21, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 18:53:21 +0400
> Oleg Nesterov <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > copy_process:
> > // holds tasklist_lock + ->siglock
> > /*
> > * inherit ioprio
> > */
> > p->ioprio = current->ioprio;
> >
> > Why? ->ioprio was already copied in dup_task_struct().
>
> It might just be a thinko.
>
> > I guess this is needed
> > to ensure that the child can't escape sys_ioprio_set(IOPRIO_WHO_{PGRP,USER}),
> > yes?
>
> How could the child escape that if this assignment was not present?
It is possible that sys_ioprio_set(IOPRIO_WHO_PGRP) was called after
copy_process() already did dup_task_struct(), but before it takes
tasklist_lock. Documentation/block/ioprio.txt doesn't say should
ioprio_set() be "atomic" or not. If not, we can kill this line, and
(more importantly) drop tasklist_lock in fs/ioprio.c
Oleg.
-
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]
