Re: [patch 7/9] signals: Fix more rcu assumptions

David Howells
2009-12-11T13:59:47Z

Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:

> > Perhaps it is better to modify __sigqueue_alloc() instead? It can take
> > rcu_lock() around cred->user itself.
>
> Indeed. Was too tired to see the obvious :)

Ah, but... If __sigqueue_alloc() is called from sigqueue_alloc(), then you
don't need the RCU read lock as the target task is current.

So perhaps the callsite for __sigqueue_alloc() in __send_signal()? That at
least puts the rcu_read_lock() call in proximity to the function that actually
needs it.

David