Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 23:10:51 +1100 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> Cc: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/isofs/cd9660 cd9660_vfsops.c Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0101242229170.44683-100000@besplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <20010123163418.N26076@fw.wintelcom.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > * John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> [010123 16:26] wrote: > > jhb 2001/01/23 16:26:19 PST > > > > Modified files: > > sys/isofs/cd9660 cd9660_vfsops.c > > Log: > > Proc locking to protect p_ucred while we obtain additional references. > > I really don't think you need the PROC_LOCK for these. > > You only need the 'uc' variable, and even then it's only to protect > against rfork threads playing with setuid which is an inhernent > race condition as p_ucred shouldn't be NULL. (afaik). I don't think you need any locking or crhold()ing for these. I think xxx_mount() is only called with p == curproc, so p_ucred can't change. Unfortunately, most vfs and vnop interfaces including VFS_MOUNT() make it unclear that p == curproc by pretending to support arbitrary p's. > Just give it some more thought, because I'm not sure I'm right > about this. Me too. Bruce To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" 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.4.21.0101242229170.44683-100000>