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

[Bradley Morgan]

On July 4, 2026 6:05:20 PM GMT+01:00, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
>Hi Bradley,
>
>FYI, this is another private message.

It's not.


>On 07/04, Bradley Morgan wrote:
>>
>> hi oleg! I'm new to reviewing, so feel free to criticize.
>
>This is fine...
>
>But if you want to have a "real" practice, you can try to review V2 from
>Eric:
>
>	[PATCH v2 00/14] Short circuit delivery for coredump signals
>	https://lore.kernel.org/all/877bnb4uyw.fsf_-_@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
>
>I won't be able to take a look until the middle of the next week.
>
>> Would a WARN_ON_ONCE(tsk != current) be worth adding?
>
>See my reply on lkml. But since this message is private...
>
>IOW. tsk->sighand must be stable here or we have more problems. Without
>this
>patch the "if (!lock_task_sighand(tsk, &flags))" check looks as if we can
>handle
>the case were ->sighand is not stable, but this is not true.
>
>And. This patch is trivial, but it connects to other (under discussion,
>nontrivial)
>changes related to the wrong usage of lock_task_sighand() in
>posix-cpu-timers.c.
>
>> For this patch,
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Bradley Morgan <include@xxxxxxxxx>
>
>Thanks again,
>
>Oleg.
>
>

Thanks!