On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 01:14:04AM +0400, avagin@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > On 03/07/2012 01:03 AM, Kay Sievers wrote: > >On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 21:06, Andrew Vagin<avagin@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >>The queue handling in the udev daemon assumes that the events are > >>ordered. > >> > >>Before this patch uevent_seqnum is incremented under sequence_lock, > >>than an event is send uner uevent_sock_mutex. I want to say that code > >>contained a window between incrementing seqnum and sending an event. > >> > >>This patch locks uevent_sock_mutex before incrementing uevent_seqnum. > > > >I think we can remove the spin_lock(&sequence_lock); entirely now, right? > > I thought about that too. sequence_lock is used when CONFIG_NET > isn't defined. I've looked on this code one more time and we may > leave only uevent_sock_mutex and use it even when CONFIG_NET isn't > defined. > Thanks for the comment. > > Greg, do you have other objections about this patch? Let's see the one based on Kay's comments first please. thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-hotplug" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
