On Wed, 4 Dec 2013 21:45:56 -0500
Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> We do not need to hold the audit_cmd_mutex for this family of cases. The
> possible exception to this is the call to audit_filter_user(), so drop the
> lock
> immediately after. To help in fixing the race we are trying to avoid,
On Wed, 4 Dec 2013 21:45:56 -0500
Richard Guy Briggs r...@redhat.com wrote:
We do not need to hold the audit_cmd_mutex for this family of cases. The
possible exception to this is the call to audit_filter_user(), so drop the
lock
immediately after. To help in fixing the race we are trying
We do not need to hold the audit_cmd_mutex for this family of cases. The
possible exception to this is the call to audit_filter_user(), so drop the lock
immediately after. To help in fixing the race we are trying to avoid, make
sure that nothing called by audit_filter_user() calls
We do not need to hold the audit_cmd_mutex for this family of cases. The
possible exception to this is the call to audit_filter_user(), so drop the lock
immediately after. To help in fixing the race we are trying to avoid, make
sure that nothing called by audit_filter_user() calls
4 matches
Mail list logo