Re: [PATCH] signal, procfs: lock_task_sighand() do not need rcu_read_lock()

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 10/03, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>
> lock_task_sighand() make sure task->sighand is being protected,
> so we do not need rcu_read_lock().
> [ exec() will get task->sighand->siglock before change task->sighand! ]
>
> But code using rcu_read_lock() _just_ to protect lock_task_sighand()
> only appear in procfs. (and some code in procfs use lock_task_sighand()
> without such redundant protection.)

Yes, the patch looks correct.

The initial implementaion of lock_task_sighand() did not take RCU lock,
that is why we still have the callers which call rcu_read_lock().
See 1406f2d321bae5ac5ff729dcb773336d9c05ec74.

Thanks!

Oleg.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/