lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Sep]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2] signal: simplify deadlock-avoidance in lock_task_sighand()
On 09/22, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 18:44:37 +0200
> Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > __lock_task_sighand() does local_irq_save() to prevent the potential
> > deadlock, we can use preempt_disable() with the same effect. And in
> > this case we can do preempt_disable/enable + rcu_read_lock/unlock only
> > once outside of the main loop and simplify the code. This also shaves
> > 112 bytes from signal.o.
> >
> > With this patch the main loop runs with preemption disabled, but this
> > should be fine because restart is very unlikely: it can only happen if
> > we race with de_thread() and ->sighand is shared. And the latter is only
> > possible if CLONE_SIGHAND was used without CLONE_THREAD, most probably
> > nobody does this nowadays.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
> > ---
> > kernel/signal.c | 31 +++++++++++++------------------
> > 1 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/signal.c b/kernel/signal.c
> > index 8f0876f..61a1f55 100644
> > --- a/kernel/signal.c
> > +++ b/kernel/signal.c
> > @@ -1261,30 +1261,25 @@ struct sighand_struct *__lock_task_sighand(struct task_struct *tsk,
> > unsigned long *flags)
> > {
> > struct sighand_struct *sighand;
> > -
> > + /*
> > + * We are going to do rcu_read_unlock() under spin_lock_irqsave().
> > + * Make sure we can not be preempted after rcu_read_lock(), see
> > + * rcu_read_unlock() comment header for details.
> > + */
> > + preempt_disable();
>
> The sad part is, this is going to break -rt.

Hmm, why??

> That
> is, is -rt susceptible to this deadlock as well?

In fact this deadlock is not really possible in any case, scheduler locks
should be fine under ->siglock (for example, signal_wake_up() is called
under this lock).

But, the comment above rcu_read_unlock() says:

Given that the set of locks acquired by rt_mutex_unlock() might change
at any time, a somewhat more future-proofed approach is to make sure
that that preemption never happens ...

so this patch doesn't try to change the rules.

But perhaps we can simply remove this preempt_disable/enable?

Or. We can shift rcu_read_unlock() from lock_task_sighand() to
unlock_task_sighand(). This way we can avoid preempt_disable too, but
I'd prefer to not do this.

Oleg.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-09-22 21:41    [W:0.068 / U:0.328 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site