Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265001AbUFGS5C (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Jun 2004 14:57:02 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265002AbUFGS5C (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Jun 2004 14:57:02 -0400 Received: from fw.osdl.org ([65.172.181.6]:14274 "EHLO mail.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265001AbUFGS47 (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Jun 2004 14:56:59 -0400 Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 11:56:37 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds To: BlaisorBlade cc: Andrew Morton , Kernel Mailing List , Al Viro Subject: Re: [PATCH] Missing BKL in sys_chroot() for 2.6 In-Reply-To: <200406061958.48262.blaisorblade_spam@yahoo.it> Message-ID: References: <200406061958.48262.blaisorblade_spam@yahoo.it> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 885 Lines: 26 On Sun, 6 Jun 2004, BlaisorBlade wrote: > > (PLEASE cc me on replies as I'm not subscribed). > > Set_fs_root *claims* it wants the BKL held: I think the set_fs_root() comment is just wrong. We properly lock the accesses to root/rootmnt with "fs->lock", and in fact no other users will have the BKL when accessing them anyway, so I don't see what the BKL would help in this case. However, from a quick grep of users, it does look like some other users aren't real careful with "fs->lock" (ie chroot_fs_refs() looks like it could have problems - probably purely theoretical). Al, do your eagle-eyes see something I missed? Linus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/