From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 16 Feb 2003 13:36:18 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 16 Feb 2003 13:36:18 -0500 Received: from dbl.q-ag.de ([80.146.160.66]:10431 "EHLO dbl.q-ag.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 16 Feb 2003 13:36:18 -0500 Message-ID: <3E4FDC61.8060301@colorfullife.com> Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 19:45:53 +0100 From: Manfred Spraul User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.2) Gecko/20021202 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Linus Torvalds CC: "Martin J. Bligh" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Anton Blanchard , Zwane Mwaikambo Subject: Re: Fw: 2.5.61 oops running SDET References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Linus Torvalds wrote: >On Sun, 16 Feb 2003, Manfred Spraul wrote: > > >>AFAICS both exec and exit rely on write_lock_irq(tasklist_lock) for >>synchronization of changes to tsk->sig{,hand}. >> >> > >Yeah, as I sent out in my last email this does seem to be true right now, >but it's really not correct. It's disgusting that we use such a >fundamental global lock to protect something so trivially local to the one >process, where the local per-process lock really should be more than >enough. > The difference between the tasklist_lock and task_lock is that task_lock is not an interrupt lock. Think about signal delivery during exec. Do you want to replace tasklist_lock with task_lock in exit_sighand() and during exec, or do you want to add task_lock to tasklist_lock? Hmm. Someone removed the read_lock(tasklist_lock) around send_specific_sig_info() - which lock synchronizes exec and signal delivery? -- Manfred