Re: [PATCH 4/6] signal: sigprocmask() should doretarget_shared_pending()

[Matt Fleming]

On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 19:21:37 +0200
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> In short, almost every changing of current->blocked is wrong, or at least
> can lead to the unexpected results.
> 
> For example. Two threads T1 and T2, T1 sleeps in sigtimedwait/pause/etc.
> kill(tgid, SIG) can pick T2 for TIF_SIGPENDING. If T2 calls sigprocmask()
> and blocks SIG before it notices the pending signal, nobody else can handle
> this pending shared signal.
> 
> I am not sure this is bug, but at least this looks strange imho. T1 should
> not sleep forever, there is a signal which should wake it up.

Agreed.

> @@ -2131,6 +2131,11 @@ int sigprocmask(int how, sigset_t *set, 
>  	}
>  
>  	spin_lock_irq(&tsk->sighand->siglock);
> +	if (signal_pending(tsk) && !thread_group_empty(tsk)) {
> +		sigset_t not_newblocked;
> +		signorsets(&not_newblocked, &current->blocked, &newset);
> +		retarget_shared_pending(tsk, &not_newblocked);
> +	}
>  	tsk->blocked = newset;
>  	recalc_sigpending();
>  	spin_unlock_irq(&tsk->sighand->siglock);

Oh man, that took me a while to understand.

So we're only retargetting the signals that we just blocked? That makes
sense but would you mind adding a comment?

-- 
Matt Fleming, Intel Open Source Technology Center
--
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/