Divacky Roman wrote: > On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 10:07:17AM +0800, Intron is my alias on the Internet wrote: >> John Baldwin wrote: >> >> >On Friday 25 August 2006 04:47, Divacky Roman wrote: >> > >> >Umm, if you want to reparent a proc you should use the proc_reparent() >> >function instead of just hacking on p_pptr. You also need to hold >> >the proctree_lock when modifying p_pptr anyway. >> > >> >-- >> >John Baldwin >> >_______________________________________________ >> >freebsd-current_at_freebsd.org mailing list >> >http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current >> >To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe_at_freebsd.org" >> >> Thank you for your reminder. I have updated my patch: >> >> http://ftp.intron.ac/tmp/linux_machdep.c.1.53-2.diff > > this is wrong > > 1) you dont PROC_LOCK(p2) > > 2) you have to lock proctree_lock instead of allproc_lock > > are you satisfied with this patch? > > www.stud.fit.vutbr.cz/~xdivac02/linux-fix.patch This problem has confused me for a long time. The lock allproc_lock is more conservative than either p2->p_mtx or proctree_lock. It is the real protector of process tree. Actually, p2 should be protected from its birth to leaving the function linux_clone(). You may commit your patch to test. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From Beijing, ChinaReceived on Sat Aug 26 2006 - 06:37:21 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:59 UTC