Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 15:17:11 -0800
From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com>
To: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>
Cc: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.ORG>, freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: cur{thread/proc}, or not.
Message-ID: <3BF05877.B9E886D8@mindspring.com>
References: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1011111101234.11566A-100000@fledge.watson.org> <3BF05241.74F895EF@mindspring.com> <200111122254.fACMsNd06845@apollo.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Matthew Dillon wrote: > Yes, I believe this is how credentials work. I looked at > the code about 6 months ago. We should not have to do any > locking of the credential stuff, only simple mutexing > around the ref counter. That is how it should work > is how I believe it currently works. FWIW: Robert had implied that more heavyweight locking of the process (or thread) structure was necessary to access the credential, which is correct, if you are referencing it that was. The part of me you quoted here was a conclusion based on using direct references to value-stable credentials rather than value-colatile proc or thread structs. It only works to refute Roberts argument if you include that; it's not correct to conclude that the way it currently works is sufficient in the face of the proc/thread dereference issues that Robert was trying to address (and which I tried to address by avoiding entirely). -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3BF05877.B9E886D8>