Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 08/24, Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote:
Oleg Nesterov wrote:
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.
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, if one thread can be in collect_signal() and another in
sigqueue_free() and both operate on the exact same sigqueue object, its
not clear how we prevent two calls to __sigqueue_free() to
the same object. In that case the lock (or some lock) should be around
__sigqueue_free() - no ?
i.e if we enter sigqueue_free(), we will call __sigqueue_free()
regardless of the state.
Yes. They both will call __sigqueue_free(). But please note that __sigqueue_free()
checks SIGQUEUE_PREALLOC, which is cleared by sigqueue_free().
IOW, when sigqueue_free() unlocks ->siglock, we know that it can't be used
by collect_signal() from another thread. So we can clear SIGQUEUE_PREALLOC
and free sigqueue. We don't need this lock around sigqueue_free() to prevent
the race. collect_signal() can "see" only those sigqueues which are on list.
IOW, when sigqueue_free() takes ->siglock, colect_signal() can't run, because
it needs the same lock. Now we delete this sigqueue from list, nobody can
see it, it can't have other references. So we can unlock ->siglock, mark
sigqueue as freeable (clear SIGQUEUE_PREALLOC), and free it.
Do you agree?
Yes. I see it now. I had missed the SIGQUEUE_PREALLOC in __sigqueue_free().
Thanks for clarifying
Suka
-
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]
