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
>> 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.
> 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.
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