[lkml]   [2014]   [Jun]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: safety of *mutex_unlock() (Was: [BUG] signal: sighand unprotected when accessed by /proc)
On Wed, 18 Jun 2014, Steven Rostedt wrote:

> On Wed, 18 Jun 2014 18:43:59 +0200
> Oleg Nesterov <> wrote:
> > And (contrary to what I said initially) we can rely on this because -rt
> > converts spinlock_t into rt_mutex ?
> Correct. Because if spinlock_t has this behavior, rt_mutex must have it
> too, otherwise -rt will suffer greatly from that. Who knows, maybe this
> will fix some strange bug reports that we have had in the past.

Indeed. I found a few backtraces from Carstens test farm, where stuff
explodes in the slowpath raw_spin_unlock call. Happens once a year or
never ...



 \ /
  Last update: 2014-06-21 22:01    [W:0.070 / U:4.184 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site