[lkml]   [2003]   [Feb]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: 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?


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:33    [W:0.028 / U:2.468 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site