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

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 06/11, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 07:17:34PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > 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.
>
> You beat me to it.  ;-)
>
> I was thinking of ->boost_completion as the way to solve it easily, but
> what did you have in mind?

I meant, rcu_boost() could probably just do "mtx->owner = t", we know that
it was unlocked by us and nobody else can use it until we set
t->rcu_boost_mutex.

And if we move it into rcu_node, then we can probably kill ->rcu_boost_mutex,
rcu_read_unlock_special() could check rnp->boost_mutex->owner == current.

But you know, I also think that the dentist removed the rest of my brains
along my tooth, so I am not sure if I actually have something in mind.

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/