Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 08:41:39 -0500
From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@us.ibm.com>
To: Li Zefan <lizf@cn.fujitsu.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Paul Menage <menage@google.com>,
       LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       Linux Containers <containers@lists.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] devcgroup: avoid using cgroup_lock
Message-ID: <20090313134139.GB32304@us.ibm.com>
References: <49B869BB.7030907@cn.fujitsu.com> <20090312181912.GA20144@us.ibm.com> <49B9BCC7.7090908@cn.fujitsu.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <49B9BCC7.7090908@cn.fujitsu.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1223
Lines: 31

Quoting Li Zefan (lizf@cn.fujitsu.com):
> >> @@ -426,11 +431,11 @@ static int devcgroup_access_write(struct cgroup *cgrp, struct cftype *cft,
> >>  				  const char *buffer)
> >>  {
> >>  	int retval;
> >> -	if (!cgroup_lock_live_group(cgrp))
> > 
> > Does it matter that we no longer check for cgroup_is_removed()?
> > 
> 
> No, this means in a rare case that the write handler is called when the cgroup
> is dead, we still do the update work instead of returning ENODEV.
> 
> This is ok, since at that time, accessing cgroup and devcgroup is still valid,
> but will have no effect since there is no task in this cgroup and the cgroup
> will be destroyed soon.

Ok, just wanted to make sure the devcgroup couldn't be partially torn
down and risking NULL or freed-memory derefs...

BTW is that against linux-next?  (didn't seem to apply cleanly against
my 2.6.29-rc9)  I guess I'd like to do a little test before acking,
though it looks ok based on your answer.

thanks,
-serge
--
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/