From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christian Borntraeger Subject: Re: [Lguest] [PATCH 4/5] lguest: use KVM hypercalls Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 11:07:05 +0200 Message-ID: <200904151107.05949.borntraeger@de.ibm.com> References: <200903271022.38244.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> <20090415083610.GA8579@gondor.apana.org.au> <20090415084717.GA8829@gondor.apana.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20090415084717.GA8829@gondor.apana.org.au> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Herbert Xu Cc: Patrick McHardy , "Eric W. Biederman" , Matias Zabaljauregui , odie@cs.aau.dk, Rusty Russell , lguest@ozlabs.org, virtualization@lists.osdl.org, "David S. Miller" , netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org Am Wednesday 15 April 2009 10:47:17 schrieb Herbert Xu: > tun: Fix sk_sleep races when attaching/detaching > > As the sk_sleep wait queue actually lives in tfile, which may be > detached from the tun device, bad things will happen when we use > sk_sleep after detaching. > > Since the tun device is the persistent data structure here (when > requested by the user), it makes much more sense to have the wait > queue live there. There is no reason to have it in tfile at all > since the only time we can wait is if we have a tun attached. > In fact we already have a wait queue in tun_struct, so we might > as well use it. > > Reported-by: Christian Borntraeger > Reported-by: Eric W. Biederman > Reported-by: Patrick McHardy > Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu Tested-by: Christian Borntraeger