Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 20 Feb 2003 15:11:42 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 20 Feb 2003 15:11:42 -0500 Received: from neon-gw-l3.transmeta.com ([63.209.4.196]:37127 "EHLO neon-gw.transmeta.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 20 Feb 2003 15:11:41 -0500 Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 12:17:05 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds To: Ingo Molnar cc: Zwane Mwaikambo , Chris Wedgwood , Kernel Mailing List , "Martin J. Bligh" , William Lee Irwin III Subject: Re: doublefault debugging (was Re: Linux v2.5.62 --- spontaneous reboots) 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: 1102 Lines: 27 On Thu, 20 Feb 2003, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > ie. something like: Well, please remove the double test for task inequality. I like the patch conceptually, HOWEVER, I'm not sure it's correct. The thing is, moving the wait_task_inactive() to __put_task_struct() means that we will be doing the "release_task()" teardown while the task is still potentially active on another CPU. In particular, we'll be freeing the security stuff and the signals while the process may still be active in the scheduler on another CPU. This can be dangerous, ie doing things like calling "free_uid()" on a process that is still running means that suddenly you have issues like not being able to trust "current->user" from interrupts. We may not care right now, but it's still wrong (imagine us doing per-user time accounting - which makes a _lot_ of sense). 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/