On 02/14, David Howells wrote: > > Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > No, only current can change ->blocked. This is even documented in > > sigprocmask(). And more, the only correct way to change ->blocked > > is set_current_blocked(). OK, with a couple of "I know what I am > > doing" exceptions in kernel/signal.c. > > I was looking at force_sig_info() and derivatives. Is that what you refer to? Ah, sorry, forgot to mention... force_sig_info() (and its callers) need the cleanups and fixes. It is almost always wrong if t != current. For example, please look at [PATCH 1/4] signal: give SEND_SIG_FORCED more power to beat SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=132890442717122 Hopefully we can fix all ab-users soon. Just in case... if we race with force_sig_info() the task will be killed anyway. But I agree, this is not nice and should be fixed. And in any case, there are other places which assume it is safe to read current->blocked lockless. > If so, is it worth providing a force_sig_info_current(), > force_sigsegv_current() and force_sig_current() to make things clearer to grep > for, I wonder? Yes, I think the "task_struct *t" argument should die. Oleg. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
