[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101221103008.GA30286@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 11:30:08 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Jesper Juhl <jj@...osbits.net>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] Always unlock 'tasklist_lock' in
kernel/exit.c::do_wait()
On 12/20, Jesper Juhl wrote:
>
> 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);
No, this is not right.
If wait_consider_task() returns nonzero (pid or errcode), tasklist_lock
should be already released.
That is why, for example, wait_task_stopped() does BUG_ON(!retval) after
it drops tasklist.
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