Will Schmidt [off-list ref] writes:
On Fri, 2007-06-08 at 12:32 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
quoted
On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 14:19:18 -0500
Will Schmidt [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
quoted
quoted
quoted
zap_other_threads() requires tasklist_lock.
quoted
In fact, it's probably the case that rcu_read_lock() is now sufficient
locking coverage for zap_other_threads() (cc's people).
It had better be, because do_group_exit() forgot to take tasklist_lock. It
is perhaps relying upon spin_lock()'s hidden rcu_read_lock() properties
without so much as a code comment, which would be somewhat nasty of it.
quoted
You could perhaps just call do_group_exit() from within the fault
handler,
btw.
Yup, so looks like I can actually replace the existing do_exit() call
with do_group_exit(). I'll sit on this for a bit to give other folks a
chance to comment on which lock call is sufficient, read_lock() or
rcu_read_lock(), etc; and do_group_exit()'s issue with taking
tasklist_lock.
No. The rcu_read_lock is not sufficient.
Yes. sighand->siglock is enough, and we explicitly take it in
do_group_exit before calling zap_other_threads.
Unless I have completely miss-understood this thread.
Eric