Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 16 Feb 2003 19:45:53 +0100 | From | Manfred Spraul <> | Subject | Re: 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/
| |