On 08/11, Jens Axboe wrote:
>
> --- a/kernel/task_work.c
> +++ b/kernel/task_work.c
> @@ -42,7 +42,8 @@ task_work_add(struct task_struct *task, struct
> callback_head *work, int notify)
> set_notify_resume(task);
> break;
> case TWA_SIGNAL:
> - if (lock_task_sighand(task, &flags)) {
> + if (!(READ_ONCE(task->jobctl) & JOBCTL_TASK_WORK) &&
> + lock_task_sighand(task, &flags)) {
Aaaaah, sorry Jens, now I think this is racy. So I am glad I didn't add
this optimization into the initial version ;)
It is possible that JOBCTL_TASK_WORK is set but ->task_works == NULL. Say,
task_work_add(TWA_SIGNAL) + task_work_cancel(), or the target task can call
task_work_run() before it enters get_signal().
And in this case another task_work_add(tsk, TWA_SIGNAL) can actually race
with get_signal() which does
current->jobctl &= ~JOBCTL_TASK_WORK;
if (unlikely(current->task_works)) {
spin_unlock_irq(&sighand->siglock);
task_work_run();
nothing guarantees that get_signal() sees ->task_works != NULL. Probably
this is what Jann meant.
We can probably add a barrier into get_signal() but I didn't sleep today,
I'll try to think tomorrow.
Oleg.
