Re: [PATCH] timerfd/eventfd context lock doesn't protect against poll_wait

On Fri, 18 May 2007, Davi Arnaut wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> poll_wait() callback may modify the waitqueue without holding the
> context private lock.

Thx Davi, patch is correct. Nice catch. But at this point instead of 
ending up getting two locks, we may look into using Andrew suggestion of 
reusing the waitqueue lock. Is it universally considered a "legal" 
operation?


- Davide


-
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/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [PATCH] timerfd/eventfd context lock doesn't protect against poll_wait
    • From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] timerfd/eventfd context lock doesn't protect against poll_wait
    • From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>

• References:
  • [PATCH] timerfd/eventfd context lock doesn't protect against poll_wait
    • From: Davi Arnaut <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: usb-storage nice value
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] INPUT: Sanitize PIT locking in pcspkr
• Previous by thread: [PATCH] timerfd/eventfd context lock doesn't protect against poll_wait
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] timerfd/eventfd context lock doesn't protect against poll_wait
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]