Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 21 Jun 2014 21:54:59 +0200 (CEST) | From | Thomas Gleixner <> | Subject | Re: safety of *mutex_unlock() (Was: [BUG] signal: sighand unprotected when accessed by /proc) |
| |
On Wed, 18 Jun 2014, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jun 2014 18:43:59 +0200 > Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > And (contrary to what I said initially) we can rely on this because -rt > > converts spinlock_t into rt_mutex ? > > Correct. Because if spinlock_t has this behavior, rt_mutex must have it > too, otherwise -rt will suffer greatly from that. Who knows, maybe this > will fix some strange bug reports that we have had in the past.
Indeed. I found a few backtraces from Carstens test farm, where stuff explodes in the slowpath raw_spin_unlock call. Happens once a year or never ...
Thanks,
tglx
| |