[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46D065DC.2030902@us.ibm.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 10:24:44 -0700
From: Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@...ibm.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
CC: taoyue <yue.tao@...driver.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...ru>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sigqueue_free: fix the race with collect_signal()
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 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