lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Dec]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch 7/9] signals: Fix more rcu assumptions
On 12/10, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> 1) Remove the misleading comment in __sigqueue_alloc() which claims
> that holding a spinlock is equivalent to rcu_read_lock().
>
> 2) Wrap the __send_signal() call in send_signal() into a rcu read side
> critical section to guarantee that the __sigqueue_alloc()
> requirement is met in any case.
> ...
> static int send_signal(int sig, struct siginfo *info, struct task_struct *t,
> int group)
> {
> - int from_ancestor_ns = 0;
> + int ret, from_ancestor_ns = 0;
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_PID_NS
> if (!is_si_special(info) && SI_FROMUSER(info) &&
> @@ -954,7 +953,11 @@ static int send_signal(int sig, struct s
> from_ancestor_ns = 1;
> #endif
>
> - return __send_signal(sig, info, t, group, from_ancestor_ns);
> + rcu_read_lock();
> + ret = __send_signal(sig, info, t, group, from_ancestor_ns);
> + rcu_read_unlock();

But, without a comment it is very unobvious why do we need rcu_read_lock().

Perhaps it is better to modify __sigqueue_alloc() instead? It can take
rcu_lock() around cred->user itself.

Oleg.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-12-10 15:43    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site