Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 22 Jun 2020 13:36:10 +0200
From:   Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>
To:     Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
Cc:     Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
        Alexander Kapshuk <alexander.kapshuk@gmail.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ebiederm@xmission.com,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, liuzhiqiang26@huawei.com,
        joel@joelfernandes.org, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
        kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel/signal.c: Export symbol __lock_task_sighand
Message-ID: <20200622113610.okzntx7jmnk6n7au@wittgenstein>
References: <20200621133704.77896-1-alexander.kapshuk@gmail.com>
 <20200622062527.GA6516@redhat.com>
 <20200622083905.c3nurmkbo5yhd6lj@wittgenstein>
 <20200622102401.GA12377@nautica>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200622102401.GA12377@nautica>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 12:24:01PM +0200, Dominique Martinet wrote:
> Christian Brauner wrote on Mon, Jun 22, 2020:
> > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 08:25:28AM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >> current->sighand is stable and can't go away. Unless "current" is exiting and
> >> has already passed exit_notify(). So I don't think net/9p needs this helper.
> > 
> > From what I can gather from the thread (cf. [1]) that is linked in the
> > commit message the main motivation for all of this is sparse not being
> > happy and not some bug. (Maybe I'm not seeing something though.)
> > 
> > The patch itself linked here doesn't seem to buy anything. I agree with
> > Oleg. Afaict, lock_task_sighand() would only be needed here if the task
> > wouldn't be current. So maybe it should just be dropped from the series.
> 
> Sure. I honestly have no idea on what guarantees we have from the task
> being current here as opposed to any other task -- I guess that another
> thread calling exit for exemple would have to wait?

When a thread in a non-trivial thread-group (sorry for the math
reference :)) execs it'll unshare its struct sighand. The new struct
sighand will be assigned using rcu_assign_pointer() so afaik (Paul or
Oleg can yell at me if I'm talking nonsense) any prior callers will see
the prior sighand value.

> What about the possibility of sighand being null that the function does
> check, is that impossible for current as well?

See above, I think that's impossible.

> 
> 
> Honestly not a part of the code I'm much familiar with, this all
> predates my involvement with 9p by a fair bit...

We can't be experts in everything. :)

Christian