Re: safety of *mutex_unlock() (Was: [BUG] signal: sighand unprotected when accessed by /proc)

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 06/11, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> @@ -1202,10 +1204,14 @@ static int rcu_boost(struct rcu_node *rnp)
>  	t = container_of(tb, struct task_struct, rcu_node_entry);
>  	rt_mutex_init_proxy_locked(&mtx, t);
>  	t->rcu_boost_mutex = &mtx;
> +	init_completion(&rnp->boost_completion);

can't rcu_init_one() do this? but this is minor,

>  	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rnp->lock, flags);
>  	rt_mutex_lock(&mtx);  /* Side effect: boosts task t's priority. */
>  	rt_mutex_unlock(&mtx);  /* Keep lockdep happy. */
>
> +	/* Wait until boostee is done accessing mtx before reinitializing. */
> +	wait_for_completion(&rnp->boost_completion);
> +

I must have missed something, I dont understand why we need ->boost_completion.

What if you simply move that rt_mutex into rcu_node ?

Or. Given that rcu_boost_kthread() never exits, it can declare this mutex
on stack and pass the pointer to rcu_boost() ?

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/