[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090204131901.GA7367@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 14:19:01 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@...el.com>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
"Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] posix-cpu-timers: use ->sighand instead of
->signal to check the task is alive
On 02/04, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2009-02-04 at 00:17 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > Sadly, it is not trivial to audit kernel/posix-cpu-timers.c, but it really
> > abuses tasklist_lock. I believe it doesn't need this lock at all, but the
> > changes are not easy to test.
>
> It uses that to hold of task reaping so ->signal doesn't go away.
Yes sure, but ->siglock alone is enough (this was not true when this code
was written, as far as I know). It is not trivial to remove tasklist
completely, but some places are trivial.
> If we make ->signal refcountable, and rcu freed along with the tasks I
> think we can get away without tasklist_lock.
I think this is possible even without this change (which is good anyway).
But the problem is not only that ->signal can go away. For example,
posix_cpu_timer_set/posix_cpu_timer_schedule should not proceed if the
task was already released, even if it had the valid ->signal.
Oleg.
--
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