Techwizz/kernel-fxtec-pro1x
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity

signals: Fix more rcu assumptions

Browse source 
1) Remove the misleading comment in __sigqueue_alloc() which claims
   that holding a spinlock is equivalent to rcu_read_lock().

2) Add a rcu_read_lock/unlock around the __task_cred() access
   in __sigqueue_alloc()

This needs to be revisited to remove the remaining users of
read_lock(&tasklist_lock) but that's outside the scope of this patch.

Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
LKML-Reference: <20091210004703.269843657@linutronix.de>
This commit is contained in:
Thomas Gleixner 2009-12-10 00:53:21 +00:00
parent 14d8c9f3c0
commit 7cf7db8df0
1 changed files with 4 additions and 4 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

8
kernel/signal.c
View file

@ -218,13 +218,13 @@ __sigqueue_alloc(int sig, struct task_struct *t, gfp_t flags, int override_rlimi
struct user_struct *user;
/*
* We won't get problems with the target's UID changing under us
* because changing it requires RCU be used, and if t != current, the
* caller must be holding the RCU readlock (by way of a spinlock) and
* we use RCU protection here
* Protect access to @t credentials. This can go away when all
* callers hold rcu read lock.
*/
rcu_read_lock();
user = get_uid(__task_cred(t)->user);
atomic_inc(&user->sigpending);
rcu_read_unlock();
if (override_rlimit ||
atomic_read(&user->sigpending) <=