Re: [RFC][PATCH 5/5] signals: Don't hold shared siglock acrosssignal delivery

From: Oleg Nesterov
Date: Wed Apr 13 2011 - 16:13:20 EST

On 04/05, Matt Fleming wrote:
> To reduce the contention on the shared siglock this patch pushes the
> responsibility of acquiring and releasing the shared siglock down into
> the functions that need it. That way, if we don't call a function that
> needs to be run under the shared siglock, we can run without acquiring
> it at all.

This adds new races. And this time I do not even understand the intent.
I mean, it is not clear to me why this change can really help to speed
up get_signal_to_deliver().

> Note that this does not make signal delivery lockless. A signal must
> still be dequeued from either the shared or private signal
> queues. However, in the private signal case we can now get by with
> just acquiring the per-thread siglock

OK, we can dequeue the signal. But dequeue_signal()->recalc_sigpending()
becomes even more wrong. We do not hold any lock, we can race with both
shared/private signal sending.

> Also update tracehook.h to indicate it's not called with siglock held
> anymore.

Heh. This breaks this tracehook completely ;) OK, nobody cares about
the out-of-tree users, forget.

Also. get_signal_to_deliver() does

signr = dequeue_signal(current, &current->blocked,

ka = &sighand->action[signr-1];


if (ka->sa.sa_handler != SIG_DFL) {
/* Run the handler. */
*return_ka = *ka;

This memcpy() can race with sys_rt_sigaction(), we can't read *ka

Actually, even SIG_DFL/SIG_IGN checks can race, although this is minor...
But still not correct.

if (ka->sa.sa_flags & SA_ONESHOT) {
ka->sa.sa_handler = SIG_DFL;

We should check SA_ONESHOT under ->action_lock. But even then this
will bw racy, although we can probably ignore this... Suppose that
SA_ONESHOT was set after we dequeued the signal.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at