This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 2.6.13.2 release.
There are 11 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response to
this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please let
us know. If anyone is a maintainer of the proper subsystem, and wants
to add a signed-off-by: line to the patch, please respond with it.
These patches are sent out with a number of different people on the
Cc: line. If you wish to be a reviewer, please email [email protected]
to add your name to the list. If you want to be off the reviewer list,
also email us.
Responses should be made by Sat Sep 17 01:00 2005 UTC. Anything received
after that time, might be too late.
thanks,
the -stable release team
--
On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 06:03:43PM -0700 Chris Wright wrote:
> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 2.6.13.2 release.
> There are 11 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response to
> this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please let
> us know. If anyone is a maintainer of the proper subsystem, and wants
> to add a signed-off-by: line to the patch, please respond with it.
>
> These patches are sent out with a number of different people on the
> Cc: line. If you wish to be a reviewer, please email [email protected]
> to add your name to the list. If you want to be off the reviewer list,
> also email us.
>
This might be worth putting in too (has been hit by at least two people
in the real world etc.)
tree e3a704026e65bf6fea0c7747f0fb75a506f54127
parent 32a3658533c6f4c6bf370dd730213e802464ef9b
author Alexander Nyberg <[email protected]> Wed, 14 Sep 2005 18:54:06 +0200
committer Linus Torvalds <[email protected]> Thu, 15 Sep 2005 00:26:34 -0700
[PATCH] Fix fs/exec.c:788 (de_thread()) BUG_ON
It turns out that the BUG_ON() in fs/exec.c: de_thread() is unreliable
and can trigger due to the test itself being racy.
de_thread() does
while (atomic_read(&sig->count) > count) {
}
.....
.....
BUG_ON(!thread_group_empty(current));
but release_task does
write_lock_irq(&tasklist_lock)
__exit_signal
(this is where atomic_dec(&sig->count) is run)
__exit_sighand
__unhash_process
takes write lock on tasklist_lock
remove itself out of PIDTYPE_TGID list
write_unlock_irq(&tasklist_lock)
so there's a clear (although small) window between the
atomic_dec(&sig->count) and the actual PIDTYPE_TGID unhashing of the
thread.
And actually there is no need for all threads to have exited at this
point, so we simply kill the BUG_ON.
Big thanks to Marc Lehmann who provided the test-case.
Fixes Bug 5170 (http://bugme.osdl.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5170)
Signed-off-by: Alexander Nyberg <[email protected]>
Cc: Roland McGrath <[email protected]>
Cc: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
fs/exec.c | 5 ++---
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/exec.c b/fs/exec.c
--- a/fs/exec.c
+++ b/fs/exec.c
@@ -745,8 +745,8 @@ static inline int de_thread(struct task_
}
/*
- * Now there are really no other threads at all,
- * so it's safe to stop telling them to kill themselves.
+ * There may be one thread left which is just exiting,
+ * but it's safe to stop telling the group to kill themselves.
*/
sig->flags = 0;
@@ -785,7 +785,6 @@ no_thread_group:
kmem_cache_free(sighand_cachep, oldsighand);
}
- BUG_ON(!thread_group_empty(current));
BUG_ON(!thread_group_leader(current));
return 0;
}
* Alexander Nyberg ([email protected]) wrote:
> This might be worth putting in too (has been hit by at least two people
> in the real world etc.)
Yes, I'd tagged it to ping you. Thanks, added to -stable queue.
-chris