Re: [PATCH] posix-cpu-timers: don't abuse lock_task_sighand() in handle_posix_cpu_timers()

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 07/04, Bradley Morgan wrote:
>
> Something else I'd like to bring up though, this file has already
> regressed once, 0bdd2ed4138e (dropping the exit_state check)
>
> And then f90fff1e152d re adding it.
>
> Would a WARN_ON_ONCE(tsk != current) be worth adding?

Well may be, up to Thomas...

But note that the problem was not that tsk != current. The problem was
that tsk->sighand could go away after unlock_task_sighand(tsk), even if
tsk == current.

> Reviewed-by: Bradley Morgan <include@xxxxxxxxx>

Thanks,

Oleg.