lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Feb]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Fw: 2.5.61 oops running SDET
Linus Torvalds wrote:

>On Sun, 16 Feb 2003, Manfred Spraul wrote:
>
>
>>AFAICS both exec and exit rely on write_lock_irq(tasklist_lock) for
>>synchronization of changes to tsk->sig{,hand}.
>>
>>
>
>Yeah, as I sent out in my last email this does seem to be true right now,
>but it's really not correct. It's disgusting that we use such a
>fundamental global lock to protect something so trivially local to the one
>process, where the local per-process lock really should be more than
>enough.
>
The difference between the tasklist_lock and task_lock is that task_lock
is not an interrupt lock.
Think about signal delivery during exec.

Do you want to replace tasklist_lock with task_lock in exit_sighand()
and during exec, or do you want to add task_lock to tasklist_lock?

Hmm.
Someone removed the read_lock(tasklist_lock) around
send_specific_sig_info() - which lock synchronizes exec and signal delivery?

--
Manfred

-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:33    [W:0.037 / U:1.180 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site