Re: [PATCH] posix-cpu-timers: don't abuse lock_task_sighand() in handle_posix_cpu_timers()

[Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>]

On 07/04, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> Hi Bradley,
>
> FYI, this is another private message.

Damn ;)

FYI, it wasn't private. I've pressed 'g' by mistake.

Oleg.

> On 07/04, Bradley Morgan wrote:
> >
> > hi oleg! I'm new to reviewing, so feel free to criticize.
> 
> This is fine...
> 
> But if you want to have a "real" practice, you can try to review V2 from Eric:
> 
> 	[PATCH v2 00/14] Short circuit delivery for coredump signals
> 	https://lore.kernel.org/all/877bnb4uyw.fsf_-_@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org/
> 
> I won't be able to take a look until the middle of the next week.
> 
> > Would a WARN_ON_ONCE(tsk != current) be worth adding?
> 
> See my reply on lkml. But since this message is private...
> 
> IOW. tsk->sighand must be stable here or we have more problems. Without this
> patch the "if (!lock_task_sighand(tsk, &flags))" check looks as if we can handle
> the case were ->sighand is not stable, but this is not true.
> 
> And. This patch is trivial, but it connects to other (under discussion, nontrivial)
> changes related to the wrong usage of lock_task_sighand() in posix-cpu-timers.c.
> 
> > For this patch,
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Bradley Morgan <include@grrlz.net>
> 
> Thanks again,
> 
> Oleg.