Re: [PATCH] fix send_sigqueue() vs thread exit race

[Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>]

On Mon, 2005-08-22 at 20:45 +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Ok, exit_itimers()->itimer_delete() called when the last thread exits
> or does exec.
> 
> kernel/posix-timers.c:common_timer_del() calls del_timer_sync(), after
> that nobody can access this timer, so we don't need to lock timer->it_lock
> at all in this case. No lock - no deadlock.

It still deadlocks:

CPU 0                           CPU 1
write_lock(&tasklist_lock);     
__exit_signal()
                                timer expires
                                base->running_timer = timer
                                  send_group_sigqueue()
                                   read_lock(&tasklist_lock();
exit_itimers()
  del_timer_sync(timer)
     waits for ever because           waits for ever on tasklist_lock
     base->running_timer == timer


I still think the last patch I sent is still necessary.

> But I know nothing about kernel/posix-cpu-timers.c, I doubt it will work
> for posix_cpu_timer_del(). I don't have time to study posix-cpu-timers now.
> However, I see that __exit_signal() calls posix_cpu_timers_exit_xxx(), so
> may be it can work?
> 
>    380  int posix_cpu_timer_del(struct k_itimer *timer)
>    381  {
>    382          struct task_struct *p = timer->it.cpu.task;
>    383
>    384          if (timer->it.cpu.firing)
>    385                  return TIMER_RETRY;
>    386
>    387          if (unlikely(p == NULL))
>    388                  return 0;
>    389
>    390          if (!list_empty(&timer->it.cpu.entry)) {
>    391                  read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
> 
> Surely, it should be impossible to happen when process exists, otherwise
> it would deadlock immediately, we did write_lock(tasklist).
> 
> Thomas, do you know something about posix-cpu-timers.c?

Not much. I look into this 

tglx