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
>> > diff -urpN -X /home/fletch/.diff.exclude virgin/fs/proc/array.c sdet3/fs/proc/array.c
>> > --- virgin/fs/proc/array.c Sat Feb 15 16:11:45 2003
>> > +++ sdet3/fs/proc/array.c Sun Feb 16 11:44:24 2003
>> > @@ -252,8 +252,11 @@ int proc_pid_status(struct task_struct *
>> > buffer = task_mem(mm, buffer);
>> > mmput(mm);
>> > }
>> > - buffer = task_sig(task, buffer);
>> > + task_lock(task);
>> > + if (task->sighand)
>> > + buffer = task_sig(task, buffer);
>> > buffer = task_cap(task, buffer);
>> > + task_unlock(task);
>> > # if defined(CONFIG_ARCH_S390)
>> > buffer = task_show_regs(task, buffer);
>> > # endif
>> >
>> >
>> I think it's needed for 2.4, too.
>
> It's not wrong, but it shouldn't help. Simply because "task_lock()"
> isn't even relevant to "task->sighand" as it stands now. It will be
> cleared without holding the task lock, as far as I can see.
>
> So I suspect it fixes things for Martin only because it changes timings
> enough not to hit the race.

Ah, fair enough ... it's probably the if, rather than the task_lock.

So what does protect sighand? tasklist_lock? It doesn't seem to
as people do things like:

spin_unlock_irq(&current->sighand->siglock);

all the time ... so is it just protected by good faith and the direction
of the wind?

M.

-
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:0.056 / U:7.652 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site