Re: uselib() & 2.6.X?

[Linus Torvalds]

On Sat, 8 Jan 2005, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>
> > No, I'd just fix them up.
> 
> What do you mean by "fix them up" ? With your minimal fix the other do_brk() callers 
> do not have the lock, you dont mean "fix" by grabbing the lock? 

I'm saying that if we decide to do the debugging warning (and I think 
everybody is agreeing that we should), then we _will_ fix it by just 
grabbing the lock in all the paths. That's what we already did with 
do_mmap(), after all.

I suspect it's not strictly needed, but as Alan has said, even though 
nothing else can chaneg the vma's at the same time, it's the right thing 
to do to keep /proc reads happy (which _can_ happen) anyway. And more 
importantly, invariants are nice - to the point where it's good to follow 
the rules even if it might not be strictly necessary.

I just wanted to keep these two issues separate. I think it's one thing to 
fix a known bug, and another thing to add some debug infrastructure to 
make sure that it doesn't happen in the future. So I think the WARN_ON() + 
adding of extra locking is a separate stage from fixing the known problem.

		Linus
-
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/