Re: [patch 7/9] signals: Fix more rcu assumptions

[David Howells]

Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > Perhaps it is better to modify __sigqueue_alloc() instead? It can take
> > rcu_lock() around cred->user itself.
> 
> Indeed. Was too tired to see the obvious :)

Ah, but...  If __sigqueue_alloc() is called from sigqueue_alloc(), then you
don't need the RCU read lock as the target task is current.

So perhaps the callsite for __sigqueue_alloc() in __send_signal()?  That at
least puts the rcu_read_lock() call in proximity to the function that actually
needs it.

David
--
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/