From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7C0A72C08BC for ; Sat, 4 Jul 2026 16:43:07 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.129.124 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1783183389; cv=none; b=M+f9vOxgHuVU2TnQm4R5hXztGnQNKY8iRKjDJlxigfrFY0ITxxetN/w/6fSc0F/KAK8g68NZsqYOjTXd+2B1qSndntMI15z0XKTj1XasCbsdfWg5KtAD/Zbp/okbyqpe4YDl/m9OCBSajhZ4AnF8N84OSPqNQaoJGGz4wMPbYUI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1783183389; c=relaxed/simple; bh=OA1TDtmpGZ4w4tWG7kU3jGzh00xadQAsErhCH1F/nvc=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=Y+9JtK7gigSmrZmyDuhJGsa7ZeceG0KukycS4ViE8mG224ekkUhUjh6+680wq/OW9qnI6f+JujXYuAjglmY+rLAStka/d6rF6Ivv3yP9oBOBVP+20upMN6V5T6Rwg1Hx3pGnfqIQ1qycHD+9S97cS3SEOgjK/oXHkaBFTpR2cG0= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b=VFUhpFCC; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.129.124 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="VFUhpFCC" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1783183386; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=OA1TDtmpGZ4w4tWG7kU3jGzh00xadQAsErhCH1F/nvc=; b=VFUhpFCCpg6j/AtfL08KsHMHtepsdN47z8VIPOJ7XUvx77Hetzvm1zuDRpHMYE9yzoojqB L6F8Mu6oZqKkzP8dlpoi5fbgBStswfBKWLW//Per6ABh1yAiBI7W5mL5E3gfZjgc7fauvi 4KNJkK2jGl5Xo55pk3ddGWstUdGvdqU= Received: from mx-prod-mc-05.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (ec2-54-186-198-63.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com [54.186.198.63]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-297-TQmL2xCfOI6ZPvYu9KaaMw-1; Sat, 04 Jul 2026 12:43:02 -0400 X-MC-Unique: TQmL2xCfOI6ZPvYu9KaaMw-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: TQmL2xCfOI6ZPvYu9KaaMw_1783183381 Received: from mx-prod-int-03.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (mx-prod-int-03.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com [10.30.177.12]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mx-prod-mc-05.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 202501956094; Sat, 4 Jul 2026 16:43:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from fedora (unknown [10.44.32.112]) by mx-prod-int-03.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with SMTP id BBA951956094; Sat, 4 Jul 2026 16:42:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: by fedora (nbSMTP-1.00) for uid 1000 oleg@redhat.com; Sat, 4 Jul 2026 18:42:59 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sat, 4 Jul 2026 18:42:53 +0200 From: Oleg Nesterov To: Bradley Morgan Cc: anna-maria@linutronix.de, frederic@kernel.org, jwlee2217@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, qw3rtyp0@gmail.com, tglx@linutronix.de Subject: Re: [PATCH] posix-cpu-timers: don't abuse lock_task_sighand() in handle_posix_cpu_timers() Message-ID: References: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.0 on 10.30.177.12 On 07/04, Bradley Morgan wrote: > > Something else I'd like to bring up though, this file has already > regressed once, 0bdd2ed4138e (dropping the exit_state check) > > And then f90fff1e152d re adding it. > > Would a WARN_ON_ONCE(tsk != current) be worth adding? Well may be, up to Thomas... But note that the problem was not that tsk != current. The problem was that tsk->sighand could go away after unlock_task_sighand(tsk), even if tsk == current. > Reviewed-by: Bradley Morgan Thanks, Oleg.