Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 15:27:47 -0700 From: Mike Makonnen <makonnen@pacbell.net> To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG, jrh@lab.it.uc3m.es, hiten@uk.FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Fixing "could sleeep..." was (Re: ../../../vm/uma_core.c:132 Message-ID: <20020611152747.091c2377.makonnen@pacbell.net> In-Reply-To: <XFMail.20020611130703.jhb@FreeBSD.org> References: <200206111001.g5BA13L3002278@kokeb.ambesa.net> <XFMail.20020611130703.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 11 Jun 2002 13:07:03 -0400 (EDT) John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.ORG> wrote: > > Yes... if you don't go through the setuid/gid family of functions. Currently, > > the only place uifind() is called, besides change_[re]uid() is in proc0_init. My > > assumption was that you need to change the uidinfo only when changing > > ucreds (either an exec or specific seteuid,etc), and that when you change ucreds > > you always crget() a new one and not reuse the old one. So, in this case there > > could be a maximum of 2 allocations (both on the new ucred): one for cr_uidinfo > > and one for cr_ruidinfo. > > Oh, duh, you are right, it should work then. You can implement whichever you please > then. I can see pros and cons cleanliness-wise of both. :) > Disregard my earlier patch. It has a bug. Is it possible to sleep when doing a FREE()? I had assumed not, but it seems I may be mistaken. On which way to go: I like your idea better, because it is less work and less bloat. Sometimes I have to keep reminding myself: "Choose the simplest design that works." Cheers, Mike Makonnen To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020611152747.091c2377.makonnen>