Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 16 Feb 2003 12:10:54 -0800 (PST) | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Subject | Re: more signal locking bugs? |
| |
On Sun, 16 Feb 2003, Manfred Spraul wrote: > But these lines are not in 2.4 or 2.5.61. > The current rule to nesting tasklist_lock and task_lock is > - read_lock(&tasklist_lock) and task_lock can be mixed in any order. > - write_lock_irq(&tasklist_lock) and task_lock are incompatible.
Oh, you're right, and you're right exactly _because_ "task->signal" isn't protected by the task lock right now. Aurgh. I had already mentally done that protection, which is why I thought we already had the bug.
So never mind. 2.4.x is obviously also ok.
> What about this minimal patch? The performance critical operation is > signal delivery - we should fix the synchronization between signal > delivery and exec first.
The patch looks ok, although I'd also remove the locking and testing from collect_sigign_sigcatch() once it is done at a higher level.
And yeah, what about signal delivery? Put back the same lock there?
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/
| |