[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706051548290.23673@alien.or.mcafeemobile.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 15:50:57 -0700 (PDT)
From: Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] signal races/bugs, losing TIF_SIGPENDING and other
woes
On Wed, 6 Jun 2007, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-06-05 at 08:52 -0700, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> > if (tsk == current)
> > recalc_sigpending();
> >
> > What can happen, is that a task may notice TIF_SIGPENDING and not find
> > a
> > signal once it calls dequeue_signal(), but this is fine as far as
> > signalfd
> > goes. This should be OK in general, no?
>
> 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?
- Davide
-
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