[PATCH] signals-do_tkill-dont-use-tasklist_lock-comment

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 03/07, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 07, 2008 at 12:58:13PM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > Note that we don't return an error if lock_task_sighand() fails, we pretend the
> > task dies after receiving the signal. Otherwise, we should fight with the nasty
> > races with mt-exec without having any advantage.
> 
> This should be mentioned in a comment in the code.

Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx>

--- 25/kernel/signal.c~2__COMMENT	2008-03-07 13:06:17.000000000 +0300
+++ 25/kernel/signal.c	2008-03-07 13:59:09.000000000 +0300
@@ -2201,6 +2201,10 @@ static int do_tkill(int tgid, int pid, i
 		/*
 		 * The null signal is a permissions and process existence
 		 * probe.  No signal is actually delivered.
+		 *
+		 * If lock_task_sighand() fails we pretend the task dies
+		 * after receiving the signal. The window is tiny, and the
+		 * signal is private anyway.
 		 */
 		if (!error && sig && lock_task_sighand(p, &flags)) {
 			error = specific_send_sig_info(sig, &info, p);

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