[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 09:50:26 +0200
From: Manuel Lauss <manuel.lauss@...glemail.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>, Marc Zyngier <maz@...terjones.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paul.mckenney@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] shm: fix a race between shm_exit() and shm_init()
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 9:43 AM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 2:45 AM, Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com> wrote:
>>
>> From: Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com>
>> Subject: [PATCH] shm: fix a race between shm_exit() and shm_init()
>
> This patch is disgusting.
>
> Doing things like this:
>
>> + /*
>> + * For init_ipc_ns shm_ids().rw_mutex is statically initialized
>> + * as kernel threads should be able to use it in do_exit() before
>> + * shm_init(), which is called on do_initcall()
>> + */
>> + if (ns == &init_ipc_ns)
>> + __ipc_init_ids(&shm_ids(ns));
>> + else
>> + ipc_init_ids(&shm_ids(ns));
>
> should have told you that there is something totally wrong with your patch.
>
> I'd prefer to really do the initialization in the allocator (at which
> point it would be very natural to do the initialization statically for
> a static allocation, and you wouldn't have the above kind of nasty
> conditional stuff), but that whole namespace initialization and setup
> just looks pretty nasty.
>
> Looking at some of the other cases like net_ns_init(), maybe the
> proper fix is to just make 'ipc_ns_init()' be a pure_initcall().
>
> Does the attached patch work?
No, same oops still.
Manuel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
