On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 3:04 PM, David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> wrote:
quoted text
>> I couldn't reproduce your original failure, but I've attempted to fix
>> it by reordering the mutex unlock and bprm free and removing the
>> extraneous unlock (see attached patch; it boots for me without
>> errors).
>
> Your patch ought to throw up its own lock failure.  You've added a
> mutex_unlock() call to the execve success path, but you haven't removed one
> from install_exec_creds().  Also, this patch is not sufficient as it doesn't
> do anything for compat_do_execve().

Ah, right. Thanks for the review anyway :-)

I didn't realize the lock should be held across the function call, I
will do a bit more research next time :-)

It seems to be a bit tricky. It would probably be nice to have
somebody else look at it too and verify that it is now indeed correct?


Vegard

-- 
"The animistic metaphor of the bug that maliciously sneaked in while
the programmer was not looking is intellectually dishonest as it
disguises that the error is the programmer's own creation."
	-- E. W. Dijkstra, EWD1036
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/