>> > diff -urpN -X /home/fletch/.diff.exclude virgin/fs/proc/array.c sdet3/fs/proc/array.c
>> > --- virgin/fs/proc/array.c Sat Feb 15 16:11:45 2003
>> > +++ sdet3/fs/proc/array.c Sun Feb 16 11:44:24 2003
>> > @@ -252,8 +252,11 @@ int proc_pid_status(struct task_struct *
>> > buffer = task_mem(mm, buffer);
>> > mmput(mm);
>> > }
>> > - buffer = task_sig(task, buffer);
>> > + task_lock(task);
>> > + if (task->sighand)
>> > + buffer = task_sig(task, buffer);
>> > buffer = task_cap(task, buffer);
>> > + task_unlock(task);
>> > # if defined(CONFIG_ARCH_S390)
>> > buffer = task_show_regs(task, buffer);
>> > # endif
>> >
>> >
>> I think it's needed for 2.4, too.
>
> It's not wrong, but it shouldn't help. Simply because "task_lock()"
> isn't even relevant to "task->sighand" as it stands now. It will be
> cleared without holding the task lock, as far as I can see.
>
> So I suspect it fixes things for Martin only because it changes timings
> enough not to hit the race.
Ah, fair enough ... it's probably the if, rather than the task_lock.
So what does protect sighand? tasklist_lock? It doesn't seem to
as people do things like:
spin_unlock_irq(¤t->sighand->siglock);
all the time ... so is it just protected by good faith and the direction
of the wind?
M.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Feb 23 2003 - 22:00:16 EST