[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1406212153300.5170@nanos>
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2014 21:54:59 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
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 Wed, 18 Jun 2014, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jun 2014 18:43:59 +0200
> Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
>
>
> > And (contrary to what I said initially) we can rely on this because -rt
> > converts spinlock_t into rt_mutex ?
>
> Correct. Because if spinlock_t has this behavior, rt_mutex must have it
> too, otherwise -rt will suffer greatly from that. Who knows, maybe this
> will fix some strange bug reports that we have had in the past.
Indeed. I found a few backtraces from Carstens test farm, where stuff
explodes in the slowpath raw_spin_unlock call. Happens once a year or
never ...
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