> the amount of potentially affected code (assuming all the locking is
> done in a single .[ch] file)
I'm not sure what that means. I'm not confident that all relevant locking
code is always in one file. If you mean that you did as I said, checked
every use of siglock and confirmed that tasklist_lock is held before
examining ->sighand, then we are good.
> this reminds me about the patch below: it gets rid of tasklist_lock use
> in the POSIX timer signal delivery critical path.
I don't see how that works at all. The thought that it would seems to
contradict what we've just been discussing. Holding tasklist_lock is what
protects against ->sighand and ->signal changing and the old pointers
becoming stale, not task_lock. What am I missing here?
Thanks,
Roland
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
