[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110816164928.GA29190@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 18:49:28 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Matt Fleming <matt@...sole-pimps.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jonas Bonn <jonas@...thpole.se>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 18/41] OpenRISC: Don't reimplement force_sigsegv()
On 08/11, Matt Fleming wrote:
>
> Instead of open coding the sequence from force_sigsegv() just call
> it. This also fixes a race because sa_handler was being modified
> without holding ->sighand->siglock.
>
> --- a/arch/openrisc/kernel/signal.c
> +++ b/arch/openrisc/kernel/signal.c
> @@ -257,9 +257,7 @@ static void setup_rt_frame(int sig, struct k_sigaction *ka, siginfo_t *info,
> return;
>
> give_sigsegv:
> - if (sig == SIGSEGV)
> - ka->sa.sa_handler = SIG_DFL;
> - force_sig(SIGSEGV, current);
> + force_sigsegv(sig, current);
> }
Agreed, but...
I don't really understand the changelog, which race this patch fix?
Yes, we shouldn't change sa_handler lockless, this "breaks the rules"
but I do not see any immediate problem. And since force_sigsegv() drops
the lock after setting SIG_DFL we can "race" with the sub-thread anyway.
Hmm. Looking more, I think that this patch is not the cleanup, but the
bugfix. The current code is simply wrong, it plays with ka, and it points
to the _copy_ of sighand->action[], so this code is simply pointless.
Unless I missed something, could you fix the changelog and resend?
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