On 04/28, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > I've not had time to fully appreciate the nested locking here, but if it > is possible to rework things to always take both locks at the same time, > then it would be possible to impose an arbitrary lock order on things > and break the cycle that way.
This is clear, but this is not that simple. For example (with this series at least), ptrace_stop() already holds current->sighand->siglock which (in particular) we need to protect current->parent, but then we need current->parent->sighand->siglock in do_notify_parent_cldstop(). Oleg. _______________________________________________ linux-um mailing list linux-um@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-um
