[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210312161830.GA27820@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2021 17:18:31 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Subject: Re: [patch V2 3/3] signal: Allow tasks to cache one sigqueue struct
On 03/12, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>
> On 2021-03-11 14:20:39 [+0100], Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > --- a/kernel/signal.c
> > +++ b/kernel/signal.c
> > @@ -433,7 +433,11 @@ static struct sigqueue *
> > rcu_read_unlock();
> >
> > if (override_rlimit || likely(sigpending <= task_rlimit(t, RLIMIT_SIGPENDING))) {
> > - q = kmem_cache_alloc(sigqueue_cachep, gfp_flags);
> > + /* Preallocation does not hold sighand::siglock */
> > + if (sigqueue_flags || !t->sigqueue_cache)
> > + q = kmem_cache_alloc(sigqueue_cachep, gfp_flags);
> > + else
> > + q = xchg(&t->sigqueue_cache, NULL);
>
> Could it happen that two tasks saw t->sigqueue_cache != NULL, the first
> one got the pointer via xchg() and the second got NULL via xchg()?
It is called with sighand::siglock held, we don't even need xchg().
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists