Re: [RFC] Race condition?

From: Oliver Neukum (
Date: Fri Aug 02 2002 - 13:45:46 EST

Am Freitag, 2. August 2002 19:37 schrieb Dave Hansen:
> Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > Am Freitag, 2. August 2002 15:46 schrieb Kasper Dupont:
> >>Is there a race condition in this piece of code from do_fork in
> >
> > It would seem so. Perhaps the BKL was taken previously.
> Even if it was, I doubt the code ever knowingly relied upon it. If I
> know that I'm protected under a lock, I rarely go to the trouble of
> atomic operations.

That depends on where else you need these variables.

> The root of the problem is that the reference count is being relied on
> for the wrong thing. There is a race on p->user between the
> dup_task_struct() and whenever the atomic_inc(&p->user->__count)
> occcurs. The user reference count needs to be incremented in
> dup_task_struct(), before the copy occurs.

I don't get you. The user_struct can hardly go away while we are

IMHO you should add a spinlock to user_struct and take it.
A clear solution that doesn't hurt the common case.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 07 2002 - 22:00:20 EST