[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <875xpa1zzo.ffs@tglx>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2024 20:16:27 +0100
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Anna-Maria Behnsen
<anna-maria@...utronix.de>, John Stultz <jstultz@...gle.com>, Peter
Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Stephen
Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>, Eric Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>, Oleg
Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [patch V5 16/26] signal: Replace resched_timer logic
On Tue, Oct 29 2024 at 18:55, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> Le Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 05:55:38PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner a écrit :
>> It still happens because SIGQUEUE_PREALLOC is cleared in sigqueue_free()
>>
>> __sigqueue_free() has
>> if (q->flags & PREALLOC)
>> return;
>>
>> So the old code called __sigqueue_free() unconditionally which just
>> returned. But now we have a condition to that effect already, so why
>> call into __sigqueue_free() for nothing?
>
> 1) Signal is queued
> 2) Timer is deleted, sigqueue() clears SIGQUEUE_PREALLOC but doesn't go
> further because the sigqueue is queued
> 3) Signal is collected and delivered but it's not calling __sigqueue_free()
> so the sigqueue is not released.
>
> This is "fixed" on the subsequent patch which uses embedded sigqueue and
> rcuref but this patch alone breaks.
>
> Or am I missing something that prevents it?
Again:
> 1) Signal is queued
> 2) Timer is deleted, sigqueue() clears SIGQUEUE_PREALLOC but doesn't go
> further because the sigqueue is queued
3)
void collect_signal(..)
if (unlikely((first->flags & SIGQUEUE_PREALLOC) && (info->si_code == SI_TIMER)))
*timer_sigq = first; // Path NOT taken because SIGQUEUE_PREALLOC is not set
else
__sigqueue_free(first); // Path taken and frees it
No?
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists