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

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 06/11, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> On 06/11, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> >  	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() ?

Ah, please ignore, I forgot about init_proxy_locked(). Although perhaps this
can be solved easily.

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/