[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20100409195936.44663BD18@magilla.sf.frob.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 12:59:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm 3/3] proc: make task_sig() lockless
> Yes. From the changelog:
>
> Of course, this means we read pending/blocked/etc nonatomically,
> but I hope this is OK for fs/proc.
>
> But I don't think the returned data could be "really" inconsistent
> from the /bin/ps pov. Yes, it is possible that, say, some signal is
> seen as both pending and ignored without ->siglock. Or we can report
> user->sigpending != 0 while pending/shpending are empty.
>
> But this looks harmless to me. We never guaranteed /proc/pid/status
> can't report the "intermediate" state, and I don't think we can
> confuse the user-space.
>
> Do you agree? Or do you think this can make problems ?
I'm not so sure. Operations like sigprocmask and sigaction really have
always been entirely atomic from the userland perspective before. Now it
becomes possible to read from /proc e.g. a blocked set that never existed
as such (one word updated by sigprocmask but not yet the next word).
Thanks,
Roland
--
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