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

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 06/17, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> +		if (drop_boost_mutex) {
> +			rt_mutex_unlock(&rnp->boost_mtx);
>  			complete(&rnp->boost_completion);

Well, I still do not understand this ->boost_completion...

> -	/* Wait until boostee is done accessing mtx before reinitializing. */
> +	/* Wait for boostee to be done w/boost_mtx before reinitializing. */
>  	wait_for_completion(&rnp->boost_completion);

OK, at least we have a comment.

But let me repeat. Thomas has already fixed rt_mutex, unlock is atomic.
It doesn't touch this memory after it makes another lock() possible.

And (contrary to what I said initially) we can rely on this because -rt
converts spinlock_t into rt_mutex ?

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/