On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Al Viro wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2013 at 11:37:27AM +0600, Rakib Mullick wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> In copy_fs_struct(), old->umask is assigned to fs->umask outside of
>> spin_lock(>lock). Shouldn't it be inside spin_lock()? Since we're
>> dealing with fs_struct *old
On Sun, Apr 07, 2013 at 11:37:27AM +0600, Rakib Mullick wrote:
> Hello,
>
> In copy_fs_struct(), old->umask is assigned to fs->umask outside of
> spin_lock(>lock). Shouldn't it be inside spin_lock()? Since we're
> dealing with fs_struct *old ? Isn't it unsafe? Following lines -
>
>
On Sun, Apr 07, 2013 at 11:37:27AM +0600, Rakib Mullick wrote:
Hello,
In copy_fs_struct(), old-umask is assigned to fs-umask outside of
spin_lock(old-lock). Shouldn't it be inside spin_lock()? Since we're
dealing with fs_struct *old ? Isn't it unsafe? Following lines -
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Al Viro v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk wrote:
On Sun, Apr 07, 2013 at 11:37:27AM +0600, Rakib Mullick wrote:
Hello,
In copy_fs_struct(), old-umask is assigned to fs-umask outside of
spin_lock(old-lock). Shouldn't it be inside spin_lock()? Since we're
dealing with
4 matches
Mail list logo
