Re: Q: check_unsafe_exec() races (Was: [PATCH 2/4] fix setuidsometimes doesn't)

[Linus Torvalds]

On Tue, 21 Apr 2009, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> 
> OK, I agree, it doesn't really matter from latency/etc pov.
> 
> But still I can't understand why it is better to take fs->lock under
> RCU lock. I mean, "fs->lock is the innermost lock" should not apply
> to rcu_read_lock(). Because the latter is a bit special, no?

Oh, I don't think it matters. If you want to put the RCU read-lock 
innermost, that's fine by me. I just reacted to your latency argument as 
not being very strong :)

All I personally want is a patch that everybody can agree on, and that 
has sane semantics. 

		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/