On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 02:36:53PM +0100, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> Mark Brown wrote:
> > > I thought of that, too, but didn't take it because covering the lock
> > > there doesn't change the fact that it's still fundamentally racy.
> > I'm not sure what you mean here - what do you mean yb "covering the
> > lock"?
> I meant covering memcpy() and parse_inplace() & co in the lock.
Oh, right. A fix is definitely needed and your fix is certainly good
from a correctness point of view but since we're narrowing the locked
region we may as well make it as small as possible while we're at it
both for comprehensibility ("why is that locked?") and performance.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
