[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87tuaebqdo.fsf@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2022 08:35:47 -0500
From: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rjw@...ysocki.net,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, mingo@...nel.org,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
rostedt@...dmis.org, mgorman@...e.de,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, tj@...nel.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
Anton Ivanov <anton.ivanov@...bridgegreys.com>,
Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
linux-um@...ts.infradead.org, Chris Zankel <chris@...kel.net>,
Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@...il.com>,
inux-xtensa@...ux-xtensa.org, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/9] signal: Protect parent child relationships by
childs siglock
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de> writes:
> On 2022-04-26 17:52:07 [-0500], Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> The functions ptrace_stop and do_signal_stop have to drop siglock
>> and grab tasklist_lock because the parent/child relation ship
>> is guarded by siglock and not siglock.
>
> "is guarded by tasklist_lock and not siglock." ?
Yes. Thank you. I will fix that.
>> Simplify things by guarding the parent/child relationship
>> with siglock. For the most part this just requires a little bit
>> of code motion. In a couple of places more locking was needed.
>>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
>
> Sebastian
Eric
Powered by blists - more mailing lists