Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933484AbXFFALz (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Jun 2007 20:11:55 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1763761AbXFFALq (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Jun 2007 20:11:46 -0400 Received: from x35.xmailserver.org ([64.71.152.41]:1145 "EHLO x35.xmailserver.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1764245AbXFFALp (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Jun 2007 20:11:45 -0400 X-AuthUser: davidel@xmailserver.org Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 17:11:44 -0700 (PDT) From: Davide Libenzi X-X-Sender: davide@alien.or.mcafeemobile.com To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt cc: Linus Torvalds , Linux Kernel list , Andrew Morton , Paul Mackerras Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] signal races/bugs, losing TIF_SIGPENDING and other woes In-Reply-To: <1181084368.31677.149.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: References: <1181006711.31677.97.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1181009413.31677.117.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1181081720.31677.144.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1181084368.31677.149.camel@localhost.localdomain> X-GPG-FINGRPRINT: CFAE 5BEE FD36 F65E E640 56FE 0974 BF23 270F 474E X-GPG-PUBLIC_KEY: http://www.xmailserver.org/davidel.asc 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: 1235 Lines: 35 On Wed, 6 Jun 2007, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Tue, 2007-06-05 at 15:50 -0700, Davide Libenzi wrote: > > > What about the code in __dequeue_signal though ? That notifier thing > > is > > > used by the DRI though I'm not sure what would happen if it acts on > > the > > > wrong task. > > > > Hmm, looking at the comments in block_all_signals(), it seems that > > they're > > interested in the fact that a specific task dequeue the signal. So, > > at > > a first sight, it seems that such code should not not be executed if > > another task dequeue the message. What do you think? > > Yes, I think the idea is that the DRM uses that to prevent signals to be > delivered to the task that is blocking them with the notifier (I have no > idea why they can't use the normal block mecanism for that... looks like > a hack to me). > > So I suppose it's fine, as long as you add a test of tsk == current to > avoid calling it. Are you going patchwise, or should I do it? - Davide - 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/