[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAEf4Bza9UYWv1uM38wBbvmGCEtcvOK3DeybQ9+QGwVf3QyTTyA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2024 13:53:56 -0700
From: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: "Liao, Chang" <liaochang1@...wei.com>, mhiramat@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
mingo@...hat.com, acme@...nel.org, namhyung@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com,
alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com, jolsa@...nel.org, irogers@...gle.com,
adrian.hunter@...el.com, kan.liang@...ux.intel.com, andrii@...nel.org,
rostedt@...dmis.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
bpf@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] uprobes: Remove redundant spinlock in uprobe_deny_signal()
On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 5:47 AM Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> On 08/13, Liao, Chang wrote:
> >
> >
> > Oleg, your explaination is more accurate. So I will reword the commit log and
> > quote some of your note like this:
>
> Oh, please don't. I just tried to explain the history of this spin_lock(siglock).
>
> > Since we already have the lockless user of clear_thread_flag(TIF_SIGPENDING).
> > And for uprobe singlestep case, it doesn't break the rule of "the state of
> > TIF_SIGPENDING of every thread is stable with sighand->siglock held".
>
> It obviously does break the rule above. Please keep your changelog as is.
>
> Oleg.
>
Liao,
Can you please rebase and resend your patches now that the first part
of my uprobe patches landed in perf/core? Seems like there is some
tiny merge conflict or something.
Thanks!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists