Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
Date:   Wed, 27 Apr 2022 08:40:09 +0200
From:   Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
To:     "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rjw@rjwysocki.net,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>, mingo@kernel.org,
        vincent.guittot@linaro.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
        rostedt@goodmis.org, mgorman@suse.de,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, tj@kernel.org,
        linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
        Anton Ivanov <anton.ivanov@cambridgegreys.com>,
        Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>,
        linux-um@lists.infradead.org, Chris Zankel <chris@zankel.net>,
        Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@gmail.com>,
        inux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/9] signal: Protect parent child relationships by childs
 siglock
Message-ID: <YmjlScztfmfWBfGi@linutronix.de>
References: <878rrrh32q.fsf_-_@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org>
 <20220426225211.308418-5-ebiederm@xmission.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220426225211.308418-5-ebiederm@xmission.com>
Precedence: bulk

On 2022-04-26 17:52:07 [-0500], Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> The functions ptrace_stop and do_signal_stop have to drop siglock
> and grab tasklist_lock because the parent/child relation ship
> is guarded by siglock and not siglock.

 "is guarded by tasklist_lock and not siglock." ?

> Simplify things by guarding the parent/child relationship
> with siglock.  For the most part this just requires a little bit
> of code motion.  In a couple of places more locking was needed.
> 
> 
> Signed-off-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>

Sebastian