[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:0.065 / U:4.008 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site