* [PATCH] proc: array: drop stale FIXME about RCU in task_sig()
@ 2026-02-15 12:45 Jaime Saguillo Revilla
2026-02-15 15:55 ` Oleg Nesterov
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Jaime Saguillo Revilla @ 2026-02-15 12:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: oleg, akpm; +Cc: linux-fsdevel, linux-kernel, Jaime Saguillo Revilla
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 <jaime.saguillo@gmail.com>
---
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);
rcu_read_unlock();
qlim = task_rlimit(p, RLIMIT_SIGPENDING);
--
2.34.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] proc: array: drop stale FIXME about RCU in task_sig()
2026-02-15 12:45 [PATCH] proc: array: drop stale FIXME about RCU in task_sig() Jaime Saguillo Revilla
@ 2026-02-15 15:55 ` Oleg Nesterov
2026-02-16 21:03 ` Jaime
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Oleg Nesterov @ 2026-02-15 15:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jaime Saguillo Revilla; +Cc: akpm, linux-fsdevel, linux-kernel
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 <jaime.saguillo@gmail.com>
> ---
> 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 <oleg@redhat.com>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] proc: array: drop stale FIXME about RCU in task_sig()
2026-02-15 15:55 ` Oleg Nesterov
@ 2026-02-16 21:03 ` Jaime
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Jaime @ 2026-02-16 21:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Oleg Nesterov; +Cc: akpm, linux-fsdevel, linux-kernel
Thanks, Oleg, for the review and Ack.
I’ll watch for the task_ucounts/RCU cleanup.
Thanks,
Jaime
On Sun, 15 Feb 2026 at 15:55, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> 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 <jaime.saguillo@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > 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 <oleg@redhat.com>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2026-02-16 21:03 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2026-02-15 12:45 [PATCH] proc: array: drop stale FIXME about RCU in task_sig() Jaime Saguillo Revilla
2026-02-15 15:55 ` Oleg Nesterov
2026-02-16 21:03 ` Jaime
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox