Re: [PATCH 40/41] ncpfs: Use set_current_blocked()

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 08/11, Matt Fleming wrote:
>
> As described in e6fa16ab ("signal: sigprocmask() should do
> retarget_shared_pending()") the modification of current->blocked is
> incorrect as we need to check whether the signal we're about to block
> is pending in the shared queue.

I'd wish I could understand this code but this seems impossible ;)
IOW, "This doesn't seem right at all." looks reasonable, and the
PF_EXITING adds even more confusion.

As for this patch, it looks (almost) fine anyway. But,

> @@ -749,7 +749,7 @@ static int ncp_do_request(struct ncp_server *server, int size,
>  		return -EIO;
>  	}
>  	{
> -		sigset_t old_set;
> +		sigset_t old_set, blocked;
>  		unsigned long mask, flags;
>  
>  		spin_lock_irqsave(&current->sighand->siglock, flags);
> @@ -769,16 +769,14 @@ static int ncp_do_request(struct ncp_server *server, int size,
>  			if (current->sighand->action[SIGQUIT - 1].sa.sa_handler == SIG_DFL)
>  				mask |= sigmask(SIGQUIT);
>  		}
> -		siginitsetinv(&current->blocked, mask);
> -		recalc_sigpending();
> +
> +		siginitsetinv(&blocked, mask);
> +		__set_task_blocked(current, &blocked);
>  		spin_unlock_irqrestore(&current->sighand->siglock, flags);

Why do we take ->siglock in the first place?

I think it is not needed. We can calculate mask/blocked lockless and
use set_task_blocked(). This also makes sense because __set_task_blocked
is not exported ;)

the sighand->action[] checks are racy anyway in the mt case, siglock
can't help.

Oleg.

--
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/