Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756713AbZIDIpa (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Sep 2009 04:45:30 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756122AbZIDIp3 (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Sep 2009 04:45:29 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:50007 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754790AbZIDIp2 (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Sep 2009 04:45:28 -0400 Organization: Red Hat UK Ltd. Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SI4 1TE, United Kingdom. Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 3798903 From: David Howells In-Reply-To: <20090903200924.E46DF47C94@magilla.sf.frob.com> References: <20090903200924.E46DF47C94@magilla.sf.frob.com> <20090903160514.GA23646@redhat.com> To: Roland McGrath Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, Oleg Nesterov , Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , James Morris , Tom Horsley , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] exec: do not sleep in TASK_TRACED under ->cred_guard_mutex Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2009 09:43:40 +0100 Message-ID: <30013.1252053820@redhat.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1367 Lines: 32 Roland McGrath wrote: > I certainly think it's right to hold the mutex only as long as necessary. > Clearly holding it when we stop is wrong. As far as I can tell, we don't hold it when we stop for debugging, or stop on signal. > I'm a bit concerned about holding it for arbitrary periods while we block > in the filesystem code. e.g., consider the scenario with a hangs-forever > NFS server or suchlike. But I'm not sure there is a reasonable way around > that one. If you drop the sem before committing the creds, you have to recalculate the new credentials. > The paired calls that leave the mutex locked in between should have some > clear comments calling attention to their pairing. Aside from that making > sure that subtlety is clear, I don't see any problems in the patch off hand. > But I haven't scoured the code path lately to have full confidence. > I'd like to hear David's reactions. Looking at the patch description, I don't see how the patch it relevant to the problem. There must be something else, either a call that's now being skipped, or it's a matter of timing. David -- 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/