[lkml]   [2008]   [Oct]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] signal, procfs: lock_task_sighand() do not need rcu_read_lock()
    On 10/03, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
    > lock_task_sighand() make sure task->sighand is being protected,
    > so we do not need rcu_read_lock().
    > [ exec() will get task->sighand->siglock before change task->sighand! ]
    > But code using rcu_read_lock() _just_ to protect lock_task_sighand()
    > only appear in procfs. (and some code in procfs use lock_task_sighand()
    > without such redundant protection.)

    Yes, the patch looks correct.

    The initial implementaion of lock_task_sighand() did not take RCU lock,
    that is why we still have the callers which call rcu_read_lock().
    See 1406f2d321bae5ac5ff729dcb773336d9c05ec74.



     \ /
      Last update: 2008-10-03 18:25    [W:0.044 / U:7.492 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site