Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 13:12:02 +0200 From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> To: David Malone <dwmalone@maths.tcd.ie> Cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Subject: Re: LOR with filedesc structure and Giant Message-ID: <27351.1061118722@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 17 Aug 2003 10:56:07 BST." <20030817095607.GA83750@walton.maths.tcd.ie>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <20030817095607.GA83750@walton.maths.tcd.ie>, David Malone writes: >On Sat, Aug 16, 2003 at 10:18:43PM +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >> At one point we have to say "Well, the locks we have above are solid, >> but we need to drop Giant below here" but if Witness sees a >> PICKUP_GIANT() as an acquisition of Giant, rather than as a >> resumption of Giant, this clearly does not work. > >Wouldn't the risk of deadlock be real, even if it is only a resumption >of Giant? I guess another option is to drop all the locks that are >held and reqcquire all of them in the right order... There is no risk at the point where I drop Giant (as far as I have been able to work out). Dropping all the locks would not work, because it is the "other" locks held which make dropping Giant safe. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?27351.1061118722>