lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Jun]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Q: down_killable() is racy? or schedule() is not right?

* Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@gmail.com> wrote:

> > This looks racy. If SIGKILL comes in the WINDOW above, the event is
> > lost. The task will wait for up() or timeout with the fatal signal
> > pending, and it is not possible to wakeup it via kill() again.
> >
> > This is easy to fix, but I wonder if we should change schedule()
> > instead.
>
> [ for what it's worth ] I think, you are definitely right here.
>
> The schedule() would be the right place to fix it. At the very least,
> because otherwise callers are obliged to always check for
> fatal_signal_pending(task) before scheduling with state ==
> TASK_KILLABLE. e.g. schedule_timeout_killable().
>
> Not very nice, IMHO.

i guess we should fix this in schedule() - is there a patch i could try?

Ingo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-06-09 13:45    [W:0.095 / U:0.008 seconds]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans