Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 16 Feb 2003 11:42:56 -0800 (PST) | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Subject | Re: more signal locking bugs? |
| |
On Sun, 16 Feb 2003, Manfred Spraul wrote: > > ABBA is not a deadlock, because linux read_locks permit recursive calls. > > read_lock(tasklist_lock); > task_lock(tsk); > read_lock(tasklist_lock); > > Does not deadlock, nor any other ordering. > > The tasklist_lock is never taken for write from bh or irq context.
Doesn't matter.
CPU1 - do_exit() CPU2 - non-nested task_lock()
task_lock(tsk) write_lock_irq(&tasklist_lock); IRQ HAPPENS task_lock(tsk); read_lock(&tasklist_lock)
BOOM, you're dead.
See? ABBA _does_ happen with the task lock, it's just that the magic required to do so is fairly unlikely thanks to the added requirement for the irq to happen at just the right moment (ie there are no static code-paths that can cause it).
Linus
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |