Re: uselib() & 2.6.X?

[Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 7 Jan 2005, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> Please don't use that for mainline - do_brk_locked doesn't follow kernel
> convention

I agree, I also find the "do_brk_locked()" naming confusing. To me it 
implies that we already _are_ locked, not that we're going to lock.

On the other hand, I think Alan's patch is equally confusing: the calling 
rules for "do_brk()" and "do_mmap()" are the same, and they are "caller 
takes mmap_sem". 

So I think you _both_ broke kernel conventions.

So I'd personally much prefer to just first fix the bug minimally (by just
taking the lock in the two places that need it), and then _separately_ say
"we should warn if anybody ever calls 'do_brk()' without the lock". That's 
how we tend to verify locking in other cases, ie we have things like

	if (!spin_is_locked(&t->sighand->siglock))
		BUG();

to verify the calling conventions. Same would go for mmap_sem (although we
don't seem to have any "sem_is_writelocked()" test - although you can fake
it with

	if (down_read_trylock(&mm->mmap_sem))
		BUG();

instead.

Now _that_ is a non-silent failure mode. The machine doesn't just silently 
deadlock: it tells you exactly what's wrong.

		Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/