Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 16 Feb 2003 15:04:38 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 16 Feb 2003 15:04:38 -0500 Received: from neon-gw-l3.transmeta.com ([63.209.4.196]:5129 "EHLO neon-gw.transmeta.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 16 Feb 2003 15:04:37 -0500 Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 12:10:54 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds To: Manfred Spraul cc: "Martin J. Bligh" , Anton Blanchard , Andrew Morton , Kernel Mailing List , Zwane Mwaikambo Subject: Re: more signal locking bugs? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1172 Lines: 29 On Sun, 16 Feb 2003, Manfred Spraul wrote: > But these lines are not in 2.4 or 2.5.61. > The current rule to nesting tasklist_lock and task_lock is > - read_lock(&tasklist_lock) and task_lock can be mixed in any order. > - write_lock_irq(&tasklist_lock) and task_lock are incompatible. Oh, you're right, and you're right exactly _because_ "task->signal" isn't protected by the task lock right now. Aurgh. I had already mentally done that protection, which is why I thought we already had the bug. So never mind. 2.4.x is obviously also ok. > What about this minimal patch? The performance critical operation is > signal delivery - we should fix the synchronization between signal > delivery and exec first. The patch looks ok, although I'd also remove the locking and testing from collect_sigign_sigcatch() once it is done at a higher level. And yeah, what about signal delivery? Put back the same lock there? Linus - 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/