[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1012202324540.23785@swampdragon.chaosbits.net>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 23:30:38 +0100 (CET)
From: Jesper Juhl <jj@...osbits.net>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: [PATCH][RFC] Always unlock 'tasklist_lock' in
kernel/exit.c::do_wait()
Hi,
The Coverity checker spotted this. I think it has a point, but I'm not
intimate with this code so there could be somethingI'm missing.
It seems that kernel/exit.c::do_wait() does not always release
'tasklist_lock'. There are multiple ways the code could be changed to make
sure it's always released, I just picked the most straight forward one.
Does this look right to everyone else or is it just me?
I've only compile tested the patch so far.
Signed-off-by: Jesper Juhl <jj@...osbits.net>
---
exit.c | 8 ++++++--
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/exit.c b/kernel/exit.c
index 676149a..456b13d 100644
--- a/kernel/exit.c
+++ b/kernel/exit.c
@@ -1647,12 +1647,16 @@ repeat:
tsk = current;
do {
retval = do_wait_thread(wo, tsk);
- if (retval)
+ if (retval) {
+ read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
goto end;
+ }
retval = ptrace_do_wait(wo, tsk);
- if (retval)
+ if (retval) {
+ read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
goto end;
+ }
if (wo->wo_flags & __WNOTHREAD)
break;
--
Jesper Juhl <jj@...osbits.net> http://www.chaosbits.net/
Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Plain text mails only, please.
--
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