Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 10 Jun 2014 22:05:20 +0200 (CEST) | From | Thomas Gleixner <> | Subject | Re: safety of *mutex_unlock() (Was: [BUG] signal: sighand unprotected when accessed by /proc) |
| |
On Tue, 10 Jun 2014, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 20:08:37 +0200 (CEST) > Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote: > > > > > Perhaps it could simply do ->owner = RT_MUTEX_HAS_WAITERS to make this more > > > clear... > > > > Good point. The new owner can cleanup the mess. > > > > I thought about this too. It should work with the added overhead that > every time we go into the unlock slow path, we guarantee that the next > lock will go into the lock slowpath. > > As long as the new acquired lock does a fast unlock, then we get out of > this spiral.
The alternative solution is to document WHY this is safe. I think I prefer that one :)
Thanks,
tglx
| |