[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1406102203430.5170@nanos>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 22:05:20 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Clark Williams <williams@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: safety of *mutex_unlock() (Was: [BUG] signal: sighand unprotected
when accessed by /proc)
On Tue, 10 Jun 2014, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 20:08:37 +0200 (CEST)
> Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
>
>
> > > Perhaps it could simply do ->owner = RT_MUTEX_HAS_WAITERS to make this more
> > > clear...
> >
> > Good point. The new owner can cleanup the mess.
> >
>
> I thought about this too. It should work with the added overhead that
> every time we go into the unlock slow path, we guarantee that the next
> lock will go into the lock slowpath.
>
> As long as the new acquired lock does a fast unlock, then we get out of
> this spiral.
The alternative solution is to document WHY this is safe. I think I
prefer that one :)
Thanks,
tglx
--
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