Tom Whitten writes: > David Bustos writes: > > Quoth Keith M Wesolowski on Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 10:39:58AM -0700: > > > It appears that in rc_node_delete() near rc_node.c:3359, we drop our > > > node lock while checking permissions. I'm trying to understand > > > whether this is a rule, as I can see no other reason for dropping the > > > lock there. If so, three calls to rc_node_modify_permission_check() > > > seem to be in error; they are made while holding a node lock, despite > > > that function's non-use of anything which could be protected by it. > > > > configd drops locks around perm_granted() because it might do name > > service lookups, which could take a long time. I would not be surprised > > if that rule was not applied consistently or thoroughly, or if it isn't > > the right rule in the first place. > > > > > > David > > _______________________________________________ > > smf-discuss mailing list > > smf-discuss at opensolaris.org > > I'll file a bug for rc_node_modify_permission_check() calls that Keith > mentioned. I did a quick check with cscope of all calls to perm_granted(), > and it looks as if rc_node_modify_permission_check() is the only function > that calls it with rn_lock held. > > tom > _______________________________________________ > smf-discuss mailing list > smf-discuss at opensolaris.org
6598922 rc_node_modify_permission_check() calls perm_granted() with rn_lock held.
