lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:31:43 +0100 From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> Cc: Hidetoshi Seto <seto.hidetoshi@...fujitsu.com>, Spencer Candland <spencer@...ehost.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> Subject: Re: utime/stime decreasing on thread exit On Mon, 2009-11-09 at 18:20 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > I just checked .22 and there we seem to hold p->sighand->siglock over > > the full task iteration. > > Yes. Then thread_group_cputime() was changed so that it didn't itearate > over sub-threads, then this callsite was move outside of ->siglock, now > it does while_each_thread() again. > > > So we might as well revert back to that if > > people really mind counting things twice :-) > > Stanislaw has already sent the patch, but I don't know what happened > with this patch: > > [PATCH 1/2] posix-cpu-timers: avoid do_sys_times() races with __exit_signal() > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=124505545131145 That patch has the siglock in the function calling thread_group_cputime(), the 22 code had it near the loop proper, which to me seems a more sensible thing, since there could be more callers, no? -- 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