Oleg Nesterov <o...@redhat.com> writes:
> On 07/17, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>>
>> And, I didn't mention this yesterday, but probably the next 08/11 patch can
>> have the same problem. But this is a bit more complicated because
>> send_sigio()
>> uses the same "type" both for do_each_pid_task() and as an argument passed to
>> do_send_sig_info().
>
> perhaps it can simply do
>
> if (type <= PIDTYPE_TGID) {
> rcu_read_lock();
> p = pid_task(pid, PIDTYPE_PID);
> send_sigio_to_task(p, fown, fd, band, type);
> rcu_read_unlock();
> } else {
> read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
> do_each_pid_task(pid, type, p) {
> send_sigio_to_task(p, fown, fd, band, type);
> } while_each_pid_task(pid, type, p);
> read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
> }
>
> this way we also avoid tasklist_lock in F_OWNER_TID/F_OWNER_PID case.
I like that. I updated that code in a different way but that looks
more elegant and I think I will incoporate it.
> To clarify, it is not that I think any sane application can do
> fcntl(F_OWNER_PID, thread_tid) but still this is a user-visible change
> we can easily avoid.
Agreed.
I do think
Eric
