Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 21:46:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Brian Fundakowski Feldman <green@FreeBSD.org> To: Doug Rabson <dfr@nlsystems.com> Cc: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net>, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: uidinfo has many race conditions. Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0006102142280.1037-100000@green.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0006102104470.68954-100000@salmon.nlsystems.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 10 Jun 2000, Doug Rabson wrote: > > Well if we get an atomic_t it could be done that way, even if we > > fail the race for updating and go beyond our rlimit slightly it's > > much cheaper than a spinlock from my PoV. The only problem is > > that afaik on some archs atomic_t can be quite small, we'd have > > to watch for overflow, perhaps a spinlock is a better idea however > > only if the next thing I mention here is realized: > > You can use atomic_add_*() to do safe arithmetic on memory locations. Yeah, but rlim_t isn't small enough to do that on an i386 :( Anyway, I don't think race conditions will ever really happen with the code, since the only interrupts that can modify sbsize are the PF_LOCAL ones, and those are (AFAIK) synchronous. > -- > Doug Rabson Mail: dfr@nlsystems.com > Nonlinear Systems Ltd. Phone: +44 20 8442 9037 -- Brian Fundakowski Feldman \ FreeBSD: The Power to Serve! / green@FreeBSD.org `------------------------------' To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0006102142280.1037-100000>