On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 02:38:02PM -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote: > Sorry, I misspoke - this check is intended not to cross-check > kernel-devel and the kernel itself, but the debuginfo or similar data > that is given to describe target of a systemtap script. I guess for > new enough kernels we'll just do that using buildid hash codes. > > By the way, there do appear to be a few suspect in-tree users of > utsname() without uts_sem locking (usb/storage/usb.c Just a debug printk. Note sure why this particular one needs to print the version, but if it really wants to do it it should rather use UTS_RELEASE. > cifs/connect.c, This one is quite fishy. Not sure what it needs the name for but the kernel utsname is probably a bad choise. And yes, this one actually is racy because the host name can change. > char/random.c, random.c is always built-in and utsname is called during the single-threaded kernel initialization phase, so this is safe. > fs/lockd/clntproc.c, ...). Yes, this one is racy. Should probably be fixed by starting lockd with CLONE_NEWUTS so that it never changed during it's lifetime. It's probably not a good idea when it changes with outstanding lockd request anyway. > If these need to be fixed, > then wouldn't uts_sem need to come back exported? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
