From owner-freebsd-current Tue Sep 10 20:28:57 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AB7637B400 for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 20:28:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gw.catspoiler.org (217-ip-163.nccn.net [209.79.217.163]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C725843E4A for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 20:28:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dl-freebsd@catspoiler.org) Received: from mousie.catspoiler.org (mousie.catspoiler.org [192.168.101.2]) by gw.catspoiler.org (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g8B3Slwr096727; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 20:28:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dl-freebsd@catspoiler.org) Message-Id: <200209110328.g8B3Slwr096727@gw.catspoiler.org> Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 20:28:47 -0700 (PDT) From: Don Lewis Subject: Re: Locking problems in exec To: nate@root.org Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On 10 Sep, Nate Lawson wrote: > I'm not sure why fdcheckstd() and setugidsafety() couldn't both happen > before grabbing the proc lock. Dropping locks in the middle or > pre-allocating should always be a last resort. That is ok as long as there aren't other threads that can mess things up after fdcheckstd() and setugidsafety() have done their thing. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message