[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1160828425.15683.16.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org>
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 14:20:24 +0200
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To: Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...l.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH]: disassociate tty locking fixups
> @@ -1364,14 +1366,16 @@ static void do_tty_hangup(void *data)
> p->signal->tty = NULL;
> if (!p->signal->leader)
> continue;
> + mutex_unlock(&tty_mutex);
> group_send_sig_info(SIGHUP, SEND_SIG_PRIV, p);
> group_send_sig_info(SIGCONT, SEND_SIG_PRIV, p);
> + mutex_lock(&tty_mutex);
> if (tty->pgrp > 0)
> p->signal->tty_old_pgrp = tty->pgrp;
> } while_each_task_pid(tty->session, PIDTYPE_SID, p);
> }
> read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
> -
> + mutex_unlock(&tty_mutex);
Hi,
what is the lock ordering rules between tasklist_lock and tty_mutex?
In the code above you first take tty_mutex then tasklist_lock, and later
on you drop tty_mutex, with the result that you then have a
tasklist_lock -> tty_mutex order.
This can deadlock if someone gets in the middle with a
mutex_lock(&tty_mutex);
write_lock(&tasklist_lock);
....
in addition, are you sure you don't need to revalidate anything after
retaking the lock?
Greetings,
Arjan van de Ven
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists