Re: [PATCH] protect remove_proc_entry

[Steven Rostedt]

On Fri, 2005-12-30 at 15:46 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > +static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(remove_proc_lock);
> >
> 
> I'll take a closer look at this next week.
> 
> The official way of protecting the contents of a directory from concurrent
> lookup or modification is to take its i_sem.  But procfs is totally weird
> and that approach may well not be practical here.  We'd certainly prefer
> not to rely upon lock_kernel().

FWIW,

My test that would crash within two days has been running for three days
now with the lock_kernel patch.  So, at least this fixes the problem,
whether we use another locking or not, it's good to know what to fix.

-- Steve


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/