On 23-Feb-02 Jake Burkholder wrote:
> Apparently, On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 11:38:07PM -0500,
>       John Baldwin said words to the effect of;
>> I'm currently testing the following patch whcih is a subset of the td_ucred
>> changes.  It involves no API changes, but only contains 2 basic changes:
>> 1) We still need Giant when doing the crhold() to set td_ucred in
>>    cred_update_thread().  This is an old bug that is my fault.  I knew that
>>    PROC_LOCK was sufficient yet which was my reason for not using td_ucred. 
>>    However, we could still be derferencing a stale p_ucred and doing very
>>    bad
>>    things, so this needs to be fixed until p_ucred is fully protected by the
>>    PROC_LOCK.  This also means that td_ucred is now safe to use.  As such:
>> 2) All the "easy" p->p_ucred -> td->td_ucred changes that don't involve the
>>    changes to API's such as suser() and p_canfoo().  The next patch in this
>>    series will most likely be the suser() API change.
>> http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/patches/ucred.patch
> The UGAR changes in sysv_sem.c to not leak Giant are most unreleated and
> should probably be committed separately.  I wonder who introduced the leaks
> in the first place.

Yes.  The first change will also be a separate commit.

> Other than that I don't see anything wrong with this.  Commit it.
> Jake


John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  <><  http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/
"Power Users Use the Power to Serve!"  -  http://www.FreeBSD.org/

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Reply via email to