[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080307110512.GA9526@tv-sign.ru>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 14:05:12 +0300
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH] signals-do_tkill-dont-use-tasklist_lock-comment
On 03/07, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 07, 2008 at 12:58:13PM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > Note that we don't return an error if lock_task_sighand() fails, we pretend the
> > task dies after receiving the signal. Otherwise, we should fight with the nasty
> > races with mt-exec without having any advantage.
>
> This should be mentioned in a comment in the code.
Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
--- 25/kernel/signal.c~2__COMMENT 2008-03-07 13:06:17.000000000 +0300
+++ 25/kernel/signal.c 2008-03-07 13:59:09.000000000 +0300
@@ -2201,6 +2201,10 @@ static int do_tkill(int tgid, int pid, i
/*
* The null signal is a permissions and process existence
* probe. No signal is actually delivered.
+ *
+ * If lock_task_sighand() fails we pretend the task dies
+ * after receiving the signal. The window is tiny, and the
+ * signal is private anyway.
*/
if (!error && sig && lock_task_sighand(p, &flags)) {
error = specific_send_sig_info(sig, &info, p);
--
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