From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+w=401wt.eu-S932704AbXCSUgF@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S932704AbXCSUgF (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 19 Mar 2007 16:36:05 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932869AbXCSUgF
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Mon, 19 Mar 2007 16:36:05 -0400
Received: from mail.screens.ru ([213.234.233.54]:47550 "EHLO mail.screens.ru"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S932705AbXCSUgC (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 19 Mar 2007 16:36:02 -0400
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 23:36:15 +0300
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru>
To: Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org>
Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
       Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
       Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 2/13] signal/timer/event fds v6 - signalfd core ...
Message-ID: <20070319203615.GA83@tv-sign.ru>
References: <send-serie.davidel@xmailserver.org.9367.1174004536.2> <m1mz29xi8g.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0703191112500.2101@alien.or.mcafeemobile.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0703191112500.2101@alien.or.mcafeemobile.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 03/19, Davide Libenzi wrote:
>
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2007, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> 
> > > +struct signalfd_ctx {
> > > +	struct list_head lnk;
> > > +	wait_queue_head_t wqh;
> > > +	sigset_t sigmask;
> > > +	struct task_struct *tsk;
> > > +};
> > 
> > I think you want to use a struct pid *pid instead of a pointer to the
> > task struct here.  It is slightly less efficient (one more
> > dereference) but it means that we won't pin the task struct in memory
> > indefinitely.  Pinning the task_struct like this makes for a very
> > interesting way to get around the limits on the number of processes a
> > user can have.
> 
> Hmm, when the task is detached from the sighand, we get a notify, so I 
> could do a put from there. This would avoid the extra de-reference. I need 
> to verify locking though ...

In that case (if I understand you correctly) we don't need {get,put}_task_struct()
at all.

signalfd_deliver(-1) sets ctx->tsk = NULL, signalfd_get_sighand() reads ->tsk
under rcu_read_lock(). The code becomes even simpler, we don't need to check
list_empty(&ctx->lnk).

Oleg.