On Mon, 2008-12-15 at 18:19 +0100, Kay Sievers wrote: > On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 18:18, Scott James Remnant <scott@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, 2008-12-15 at 18:14 +0100, Kay Sievers wrote: > > > >> Yep, and they are racy, we discussed that at the time you did that. It > >> seems to work fine for you though, which is good. But I didn't want to > >> add that any enterprise release, which we would need to support for > >> many years. Device-mapper needs _proper_ udev integration, not a > >> "overwrite each-other and the last one wins" solution. :) > >> > > I don't agree that there's any race here. > > Should be all in the archives, you never responded that time to my concerns. :) > I could only find one concern noted, which the code proves is incorrect. Assuming you mean the time period between stat() and rename(), one or the other of the syscalls with fail - and both udev and devmapper will loop and repair the situation. Scott -- Scott James Remnant scott@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
