Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 00:27:06 +0000 From: Peter Edwards <peadar.edwards@gmail.com> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Cc: ups@tree.com Subject: Re: Slight change of vnode<-->vm object relationship. Message-ID: <34cb7c840501111627d3a1bf3@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <25164.1105484915@critter.freebsd.dk> References: <34cb7c84050111145415980aa2@mail.gmail.com> <25164.1105484915@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 00:08:35 +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote: > In message <34cb7c84050111145415980aa2@mail.gmail.com>, Peter Edwards writes: > > >How about mmap() mappings after the close()? These can persist post > >VOP_CLOSE, can't they? > > I belive they hold a reference to the vnode so that it is in fact > not really closed after all, it just looks that way from userland. > As Stephan pointed out, that's looked after by VOP_INACTIVE, which doesn't pair quite as smoothly with VOP_OPEN. Also, the VOP_OPEN/VOP_CLOSE doesn't seem to bracket for exec() either (there's a call to VOP_OPEN, but I can't find the matching VOP_CLOSE. That could be just a bug, or myopia on my part)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?34cb7c840501111627d3a1bf3>