[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220427141018.GA17421@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2022 16:10:25 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rjw@...ysocki.net, mingo@...nel.org,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
rostedt@...dmis.org, mgorman@...e.de, bigeasy@...utronix.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 6/9] signal: Always call do_notify_parent_cldstop with
siglock held
On 04/26, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> @@ -2164,7 +2166,9 @@ static void do_notify_parent_cldstop(struct task_struct *tsk,
> }
>
> sighand = parent->sighand;
> - spin_lock_irqsave(&sighand->siglock, flags);
> + lock = tsk->sighand != sighand;
> + if (lock)
> + spin_lock_nested(&sighand->siglock, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
But why is it safe?
Suppose we have two tasks, they both trace each other, both call
ptrace_stop() at the same time. Of course this is ugly, they both
will block.
But with this patch in this case we have the trivial ABBA deadlock,
no?
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists