On 08/04, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 18:20 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > > + rcu_read_lock(); > > > + pid = find_vpid(owner.pid); > > > + ret = __f_setown(filp, pid, type, 1); > > > + rcu_read_unlock(); > > > + > > > + return ret; > > > > Perhaps it makes sense to return -ESRCH if owner.pid && !pid, not > > sure. > > We'd need that case to unset/clear the owner, so returning -ESRCH might > confuse users I think.
Agreed. Perhaps we should do nothing but return -ESRCH if user passes owner->pid != 0 and it is not valid. But this is minor and can be tweaked later. (and to clarify again, not that I really think we should do this, just a random thought). > How about the below delta, it changes send_sigurg_to_task() to also use > do_send_sig_info() which looses the check_kill_permission() check, but > your previous changes lost that same thing from SIGIO -- so I'm hoping > that's ok. Yes, I think this is fine! Oleg. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july _______________________________________________ perfmon2-devel mailing list perfmon2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/perfmon2-devel
