On 08/24, taoyue wrote:
>
> Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >>
> >>collect_signal: sigqueue_free:
> >>
> >> list_del_init(&first->list);
> >> spin_lock_irqsave(lock, flags);
> >>
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> >> if (!list_empty(&q->list))
> >> list_del_init(&q->list);
> >> spin_unlock_irqrestore(lock,
> >> flags);
> >> q->flags &= ~SIGQUEUE_PREALLOC;
> >>
> >> __sigqueue_free(first); __sigqueue_free(q);
> >>
> >
> >collect_signal() is always called under ->siglock which is also taken by
> >sigqueue_free(), so this is not possible.
> >
> >Basically, this patch is the same one-liner I sent you before
> >
> > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=118772206603453&w=2
> >
> >(Thanks for the additional testing and report, btw).
> >
> >P.S. It would be nice to know if this patch solves the problems reported
> >by Jeremy, but his email is disabled.
> >
> >Oleg.
> >
> >
> I know, using current->sighand->siglock to prevent one sigqueue
> is free twice. I want to know whether it is possible that the two
> function is called in different thread. If that, the spin_lock is useless.
Not sure I understand. Yes, it is possible they are called by 2 different
threads, that is why we had a race. But all threads in the same thread
group have the same ->sighand, and thus the same ->sighand->siglock.
Oleg.
-
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]
