On 23-Feb-02 Jake Burkholder wrote: > Apparently, On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 11:38:07PM -0500, > John Baldwin said words to the effect of; > >> I'm currently testing the following patch whcih is a subset of the td_ucred >> changes. It involves no API changes, but only contains 2 basic changes: >> >> 1) We still need Giant when doing the crhold() to set td_ucred in >> cred_update_thread(). This is an old bug that is my fault. I knew that >> PROC_LOCK was sufficient yet which was my reason for not using td_ucred. >> However, we could still be derferencing a stale p_ucred and doing very >> bad >> things, so this needs to be fixed until p_ucred is fully protected by the >> PROC_LOCK. This also means that td_ucred is now safe to use. As such: >> >> 2) All the "easy" p->p_ucred -> td->td_ucred changes that don't involve the >> changes to API's such as suser() and p_canfoo(). The next patch in this >> series will most likely be the suser() API change. >> >> http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/patches/ucred.patch > > The UGAR changes in sysv_sem.c to not leak Giant are most unreleated and > should probably be committed separately. I wonder who introduced the leaks > in the first place.
Yes. The first change will also be a separate commit. > Other than that I don't see anything wrong with this. Commit it. > > Jake -- John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
