public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru>
To: Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@us.ibm.com>
Cc: taoyue <yue.tao@windriver.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@sw.ru>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sigqueue_free: fix the race with collect_signal()
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 00:23:05 +0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20070824202305.GA274@tv-sign.ru> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <46CF3988.1020408@us.ibm.com>

On 08/24, Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote:
>
> Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >On 08/24, taoyue wrote:
> >  
> >>Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >>    
> >>>>collect_signal:				sigqueue_free:
> >>>>
> >>>>	list_del_init(&first->list);
> >>>>                                      spin_lock_irqsave(lock, flags);
> >>>>   
> >>>>        
> >>>                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >>> 
> >>>      
> >>>>                                      if (!list_empty(&q->list))
> >>>>                                            list_del_init(&q->list);
> >>>>                                      spin_unlock_irqrestore(lock, 
> >>>>                                      flags);
> >>>>                                      q->flags &= ~SIGQUEUE_PREALLOC;
> >>>>
> >>>>      __sigqueue_free(first);		__sigqueue_free(q);
> >>>>   
> >>>>        
> >>>collect_signal() is always called under ->siglock which is also taken by
> >>>sigqueue_free(), so this is not possible.
> >>>
> >>> 
> >>>      
> >>I know, using current->sighand->siglock to prevent one sigqueue
> >>is free twice. I want to know whether it is possible that the two
> >>function is called in different thread. If that, the spin_lock is useless.
> >>    
> >
> >Not sure I understand. Yes, it is possible they are called by 2 different
> >threads, that is why we had a race. But all threads in the same thread
> >group have the same ->sighand, and thus the same ->sighand->siglock.
> >  
> 
> Oleg, if one thread can be in collect_signal() and another in 
> sigqueue_free() and both operate on the exact same sigqueue object, its 
> not clear how we prevent two calls to __sigqueue_free() to
> the same object. In that case the lock (or some lock) should be around 
> __sigqueue_free() - no ?
> 
> i.e if we enter sigqueue_free(), we will call __sigqueue_free() 
> regardless of the state.

Yes. They both will call __sigqueue_free(). But please note that __sigqueue_free()
checks SIGQUEUE_PREALLOC, which is cleared by sigqueue_free().

IOW, when sigqueue_free() unlocks ->siglock, we know that it can't be used
by collect_signal() from another thread. So we can clear SIGQUEUE_PREALLOC
and free sigqueue. We don't need this lock around sigqueue_free() to prevent
the race. collect_signal() can "see" only those sigqueues which are on list.

IOW, when sigqueue_free() takes ->siglock, colect_signal() can't run, because
it needs the same lock. Now we delete this sigqueue from list, nobody can
see it, it can't have other references. So we can unlock ->siglock, mark
sigqueue as freeable (clear SIGQUEUE_PREALLOC), and free it.

Do you agree?

Oleg.


  reply	other threads:[~2007-08-24 20:23 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2007-08-23 13:45 [PATCH] sigqueue_free: fix the race with collect_signal() Oleg Nesterov
2007-08-23 21:36 ` Sukadev Bhattiprolu
2007-08-23 22:05   ` Oleg Nesterov
2007-08-24 14:26 ` taoyue
2007-08-24  7:45   ` Oleg Nesterov
2007-08-24 21:29     ` taoyue
2007-08-24 11:08       ` Oleg Nesterov
2007-08-24 20:03         ` Sukadev Bhattiprolu
2007-08-24 20:23           ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2007-08-25 17:24             ` Sukadev Bhattiprolu
2007-08-25 17:34               ` Oleg Nesterov
2007-08-27 13:45             ` taoyue
2007-08-27  5:57               ` Oleg Nesterov

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20070824202305.GA274@tv-sign.ru \
    --to=oleg@tv-sign.ru \
    --cc=adobriyan@sw.ru \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=roland@redhat.com \
    --cc=stable@kernel.org \
    --cc=sukadev@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=yue.tao@windriver.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox