On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 18:44:40 +0200
Oleg Nesterov <o...@redhat.com> wrote:

> __cleanup_sighand() frees sighand without RCU grace period. This is
> correct but this looks "obviously buggy" and constantly confuses the
> readers, add the comments to explain how this works.

Reviewed-by: Steven Rostedt <rost...@goodmis.org>

-- Steve

> 
> Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <o...@redhat.com>
> ---
>  kernel/fork.c   |    5 ++++-
>  kernel/signal.c |   12 +++++++++++-
>  2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/fork.c b/kernel/fork.c
> index 1380d8a..2dd9f1d 100644
> --- a/kernel/fork.c
> +++ b/kernel/fork.c
> @@ -1017,11 +1017,14 @@ void __cleanup_sighand(struct sighand_struct *sighand)
>  {
>       if (atomic_dec_and_test(&sighand->count)) {
>               signalfd_cleanup(sighand);
> +             /*
> +              * sighand_cachep is SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU so we can free it
> +              * without an RCU grace period, see __lock_task_sighand().
> +              */
>               kmem_cache_free(sighand_cachep, sighand);
>       }
>  }
>  
> -
>  /*
>   * Initialize POSIX timer handling for a thread group.
>   */
> diff --git a/kernel/signal.c b/kernel/signal.c
> index 61a1f55..9562a4f 100644
> --- a/kernel/signal.c
> +++ b/kernel/signal.c
> @@ -1272,7 +1272,17 @@ struct sighand_struct *__lock_task_sighand(struct 
> task_struct *tsk,
>               sighand = rcu_dereference(tsk->sighand);
>               if (unlikely(sighand == NULL))
>                       break;
> -
> +             /*
> +              * This sighand can be already freed and even reused, but
> +              * we rely on SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU and sighand_ctor() which
> +              * initializes ->siglock: this slab can't go away, it has
> +              * the same object type, ->siglock can't be reinitialized.
> +              *
> +              * We need to ensure that tsk->sighand is still the same
> +              * after we take the lock, we can race with de_thread() or
> +              * __exit_signal(). In the latter case the next iteration
> +              * must see ->sighand == NULL.
> +              */
>               spin_lock_irqsave(&sighand->siglock, *flags);
>               if (likely(sighand == tsk->sighand))
>                       break;

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Reply via email to