Re: [PATCH 3/3] posix timers: use SIGQUEUE_CANCELLED when the timer is destroyed

From: Oleg Nesterov
Date: Sun May 18 2008 - 13:47:02 EST

On 05/18, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sun, 18 May 2008, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > Initially, I did
> >
> > q->flags |= SIGQUEUE_CANCELLED;
> > spin_lock_irqsave(lock, flags);
> > q->flags &= ~SIGQUEUE_PREALLOC;
> >
> > to document the fact that SIGQUEUE_CANCELLED can be set lockless, but
> > then "optimized" the code, couldn't help myself... Besides, the code
> > above looks really confusing without the fat comment.
> Oh, and the above is *wrong*.
> Why?
> Becayse if SIGQUEUE_PREALLOC setting needs the lock, then setting any
> *other* bit in that word will also need the lock!
> That's because
> writes those other bits too - admittedly with the value they were read
> just before, but if it races with something setting SIGQUEUE_PREALLOC that
> doesn't matter - the newly written version will simply be wrong.
> So the rule is that if one bit of a word needs locking, then they *all*
> do.

Ah. I wasn't clear.

Clearing of SIGQUEUE_PREALLOC needs ->siglock, yes. But not because anybody
else can write to q->flags. Nobody can, we (the timer) "own" this sigqueue.

Once we clear SIGQUEUE_PREALLOC, "q" can be freed by the receiver (it doesn't
writes to q->flags, it only reads ->flags). After that we can't trust the
list_empty() check, we just can't dereference this "struct sigqueue *".

Taking ->siglock before "&= ~SIGQUEUE_PREALLOC" ensures that "q" can't be
be freed if it is queued, nothing more.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at