* Frans Klaver <franskla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 8:03 AM, Ingo Molnar <mi...@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > * Maninder Singh <maninder...@samsung.com> wrote:
> >
> >> EP-F6AA0618C49C4AEDA73BFF1B39950BAB
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> From: Maninder Singh <maninder...@samsung.com>
> >>
> >> Subject: [PATCH 1/1] kernel/exit.c : Fix missing task_unlock
> >>
> >> This patch adds missing read_unlock if do_wait_thread or ptrace_do_wait
> >> returns non zero.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Maninder Singh <maninder...@samsung.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Vaneet Narang <v.nar...@samsung.com>
> >> Reviewd-by: Akhilesh Kumar <akhiles...@samsung.com>
> >> ---
> >> kernel/exit.c | 8 ++++++--
> >> 1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/kernel/exit.c b/kernel/exit.c
> >> index 22fcc05..31a061f 100644
> >> --- a/kernel/exit.c
> >> +++ b/kernel/exit.c
> >> @@ -1486,12 +1486,16 @@ repeat:
> >> tsk = current;
> >> do {
> >> retval = do_wait_thread(wo, tsk);
> >> - if (retval)
> >> + if (retval) {
> >> + read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
> >> goto end;
> >> + }
> >>
> >> retval = ptrace_do_wait(wo, tsk);
> >> - if (retval)
> >> + if (retval) {
> >> + read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
> >> goto end;
> >> + }
> >>
> >> if (wo->wo_flags & __WNOTHREAD)
> >> break;
> >
> > That's surprising <snip>
>
> Still it looks like it is a legitimate change. I don't see where the
> unlock would be done otherwise.
No, it does not look like a legitimate change, that's why I asked the
questions. I think this patch breaks the kernel badly.
As it is explained in the comments as well, the various wait-loop
functions (do_wait_thread(), ptrace_do_wait()) fundamentally unlock
the tasklist_lock if they return an error.
NAK.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
