lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Feb]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 3.14-rc2 XFS backtrace because irqs_disabled.
On 02/15, Al Viro wrote:
>
> > Ouch... I think I see what you mean. Let me see if I got it right:
> > timer->sigq is *not* freed by collect_signal(); it's done by
> > release_posix_timer() instead, under siglock. Frankly, this
> > /*
> > * If it is queued it will be freed when dequeued,
> > * like the "regular" sigqueue.
> > */
> > if (!list_empty(&q->list))
> > q = NULL;
> > in sigqueue_free() smells like it's asking for races. Sigh...

This is protected by ->siglock, should be safe...

> So basically we want a different condition for "can we just go ahead and
> free that sucker", right? Instead of "it's on the list, shan't free it"
> it ought to be something like "it's on the list or it is referenced by
> ksiginfo". Locking will be interesting, though... ;-/

I guess yes... send_sigqueue() checks list_empty() too, probably nobody else.


> BTW, I really wonder how does that stuff interact with PTRACE_SETSIGINFO.
> What happens if tracer does PTRACE_GETSIGINFO, changes ->si_signo to
> something blocked, shoves it back with PTRACE_SETSIGINFO and does
> PTRACE_CONT with that new signal number? Would we get two sigqueue instances
> with the same ->si_tid, one of them matching the timer->sigq and another
> - not?

Or the task sends a SI_TIMER info to itself via sys_rt_sigqueueinfo().

Afaics, nothing really bad can happen, I mean the kernel should not
crash or something like this. do_schedule_next_timer() can be fooled,
but at least lock_timer() can only succeed if this process actually
has a timer with the same timer_id. This sigqueue != timer->sigq, but
I think this doesn't matter, posix_timer_event() will use timer->sigq
anyway.

Oleg.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-02-15 19:21    [W:0.058 / U:0.044 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site