Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1754761AbbEUKcO (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 21 May 2015 06:32:14 -0400
Received: from mail-wg0-f53.google.com ([74.125.82.53]:35798 "EHLO
	mail-wg0-f53.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1753081AbbEUKcL (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 21 May 2015 06:32:11 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20150521060348.GA5615@gmail.com>
References: <670017389.505251432184399737.JavaMail.weblogic@ep2mlwas07b>
	<20150521060348.GA5615@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 12:32:10 +0200
Message-ID: <CAH6sp9P_W01=A19oVvgAvHYqTWd1ZbrUyKH1hfM-f0htREazKQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [EDT][PATCH] kernel/exit.c : Fix missing read_unlock
From: Frans Klaver <fransklaver@gmail.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: Maninder Singh <maninder1.s@samsung.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, oleg@redhat.com,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>, ionut.m.alexa@gmail.com,
        Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "v.narang@samsung.com" <v.narang@samsung.com>,
        AKHILESH KUMAR <akhilesh.k@samsung.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2026
Lines: 61

On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 8:03 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> * Maninder Singh <maninder1.s@samsung.com> wrote:
>
>>  EP-F6AA0618C49C4AEDA73BFF1B39950BAB
>> Hi,
>>
>> From: Maninder Singh <maninder1.s@samsung.com>
>>
>> Subject: [PATCH 1/1] kernel/exit.c : Fix missing task_unlock
>>
>> This patch adds missing read_unlock if do_wait_thread or ptrace_do_wait
>> returns non zero.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Maninder Singh <maninder1.s@samsung.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Vaneet Narang <v.narang@samsung.com>
>> Reviewd-by: Akhilesh Kumar <akhilesh.k@samsung.com>
>> ---
>>  kernel/exit.c |    8 ++++++--
>>  1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/exit.c b/kernel/exit.c
>> index 22fcc05..31a061f 100644
>> --- a/kernel/exit.c
>> +++ b/kernel/exit.c
>> @@ -1486,12 +1486,16 @@ repeat:
>>       tsk = current;
>>       do {
>>               retval = do_wait_thread(wo, tsk);
>> -             if (retval)
>> +             if (retval) {
>> +                     read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
>>                       goto end;
>> +             }
>>
>>               retval = ptrace_do_wait(wo, tsk);
>> -             if (retval)
>> +             if (retval) {
>> +                     read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
>>                       goto end;
>> +             }
>>
>>               if (wo->wo_flags & __WNOTHREAD)
>>                       break;
>
> That's surprising <snip>

Still it looks like it is a legitimate change. I don't see where the
unlock would be done otherwise.

I do wonder if this would look nicer if the whole locked part would be
pulled out into a separate (inline) function. That would render the
repeated read_unlock()s unnecessary and possibly also prevent a
goto/label mess if that were to be attempted in-line.

Frans
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/