From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Emelyanov Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/15] Move exit_task_namespaces() Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 10:38:02 +0400 Message-ID: <46A992CA.5060906@sw.ru> References: <46A8B37B.6050108@openvz.org> <46A8B3C4.5080601@openvz.org> <1185466239.18414.95.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1185466239.18414.95.camel@localhost> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org Errors-To: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org To: Dave Hansen , Sukadev Bhattiprolu , Oleg Nesterov Cc: Linux Containers List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org Dave Hansen wrote: > On Thu, 2007-07-26 at 18:46 +0400, Pavel Emelyanov wrote: >> + write_unlock_irq(&tasklist_lock); >> + exit_task_namespaces(tsk); >> + write_lock_irq(&tasklist_lock); > > Are there any other side-effects of doing this? What was the Looks like there are :( Oleg pointed out, that if any thread dies it can re-parent all its children to this one, who already released its namespaces... :( > tasklist_lock protecting here when it was released? > > -- Dave > >