On 08/12, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> On Sun, 2007-08-12 at 21:05 +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > sys_timer_create() sets ->it_process and unlocks ->siglock, then checks
> > tmr->it_sigev_notify to define if get_task_struct() is needed.
> >
> > We already passed ->it_id to the caller, another thread can delete this
> > timer and free its memory in between.
> >
> > As a minimal fix, move this code under ->siglock, sys_timer_delete() takes
> > it too before calling release_posix_timer(). A proper serialization would
> > be to take ->it_lock, we add a partly initialized timer on posix_timers_id,
> > not good.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Acked-by: Thomas Gleixner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Oooh, thanks, but...
> > --- t/kernel/posix-timers.c~2_CREATE 2007-08-12 17:59:17.000000000
> > +0400
> > +++ t/kernel/posix-timers.c 2007-08-12 18:11:33.000000000 +0400
> > @@ -547,13 +547,12 @@ sys_timer_create(const clockid_t which_c
> > new_timer->it_process = process;
> > list_add(&new_timer->list,
> > &process->signal->posix_timers);
> > -
> > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&process->sighand->siglock, flags);
> > if (new_timer->it_sigev_notify ==
> > (SIGEV_SIGNAL|SIGEV_THREAD_ID))
> > get_task_struct(process);
> > } else {
> > -
> > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&process->sighand->siglock, flags);
> > process = NULL;
> > }
> > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&process->sighand->siglock,
> > flags);
i'll resend this patch tomorrow. We can't do
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&process->...)
if we set process = NULL above.
This all needs a cleanup anyway. The PF_EXITING check and related comment are
bogus.
Other patches do not depend on this one.
Oleg.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
