From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B74E18BC3D for ; Sun, 15 Feb 2026 15:55:38 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.129.124 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1771170940; cv=none; b=Axp9MMOd7lfEekv9wqpjpj6cncL0tAX+ggkUwnZeWvIsatA/qnB+rYDYIgM6LaYPMCv9Q7RWia+OVopP6UArn3tPg1VEaQjjKhzIhFbm7XHYkoBA7SHHXQNMIyCIxasRERnzj0VR8uZbHuikdBqm8gZDbAlorVuCdN1kNCZkTfE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1771170940; c=relaxed/simple; bh=V1Kd52Svd0d4Ifm+Ujbb9DMQkftOdRtXjzloUNnB8s4=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=hZDOufCb2ZYKWJjrNsPEcc/tqIrlCakzTULG+a5zrfOW2KsvFh0xRpRQ+ZRjVFtn+EwEihzbvu1EOlC3ijkOnRq+yRWkmJiVXcIHTinQ0jZDLoh671K14GcOWx1KKwsU5ctHj/zIDsVdtNADIL9ybcFH6VmWCj9+mgKWcNciY7c= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b=MfXuqOJ2; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.129.124 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="MfXuqOJ2" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1771170938; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=fiNrGcY3mKcowblXtfyit1JCIYjw1DXbmLL3M6Khkyg=; b=MfXuqOJ2jpLIuAHjdv0f9keN2WT8JewVemLJ/jEGkFL9Pzuq3QR1cMSh/LPX4lQ8+m8hED TvQ/2JXEiD/ml8rtQ76oWHrvDouAnsgo2GkDJUj67ala4cPCdR6nkhhSpXM3JpU8euCZQ6 HAEnTSXo/EPo00wMVL3Dh7W0eG0TcfA= Received: from mx-prod-mc-08.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (ec2-35-165-154-97.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com [35.165.154.97]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-333-DNwnof6hN5-5sMv7I3qhoA-1; Sun, 15 Feb 2026 10:55:36 -0500 X-MC-Unique: DNwnof6hN5-5sMv7I3qhoA-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: DNwnof6hN5-5sMv7I3qhoA_1771170935 Received: from mx-prod-int-08.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (mx-prod-int-08.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com [10.30.177.111]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mx-prod-mc-08.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E4F2718003FC; Sun, 15 Feb 2026 15:55:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from fedora (unknown [10.44.32.50]) by mx-prod-int-08.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 110741800465; Sun, 15 Feb 2026 15:55:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: by fedora (nbSMTP-1.00) for uid 1000 oleg@redhat.com; Sun, 15 Feb 2026 16:55:34 +0100 (CET) Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2026 16:55:31 +0100 From: Oleg Nesterov To: Jaime Saguillo Revilla Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] proc: array: drop stale FIXME about RCU in task_sig() Message-ID: References: <20260215124511.14227-1-jaime.saguillo@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20260215124511.14227-1-jaime.saguillo@gmail.com> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.4.1 on 10.30.177.111 On 02/15, Jaime Saguillo Revilla wrote: > task_sig() already wraps the SigQ rlimit read in an explicit RCU > read-side critical section. Drop the stale FIXME comment and keep using > task_ucounts() for the ucounts access. > > No functional change. > > Signed-off-by: Jaime Saguillo Revilla > --- > fs/proc/array.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/fs/proc/array.c b/fs/proc/array.c > index f447e734612a..90fb0c6b5f99 100644 > --- a/fs/proc/array.c > +++ b/fs/proc/array.c > @@ -280,7 +280,7 @@ static inline void task_sig(struct seq_file *m, struct task_struct *p) > blocked = p->blocked; > collect_sigign_sigcatch(p, &ignored, &caught); > num_threads = get_nr_threads(p); > - rcu_read_lock(); /* FIXME: is this correct? */ > + rcu_read_lock(); > qsize = get_rlimit_value(task_ucounts(p), UCOUNT_RLIMIT_SIGPENDING); I think that task_ucounts/rcu interaction need cleanups, I'll try to do this next week(s)... But as for this change I agree: the code is correct and "FIXME' adds the unnecessary confusion. Acked-by: Oleg Nesterov