From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751086AbWGCKjk (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Jul 2006 06:39:40 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751096AbWGCKjk (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Jul 2006 06:39:40 -0400 Received: from canuck.infradead.org ([205.233.218.70]:16005 "EHLO canuck.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751086AbWGCKjk (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Jul 2006 06:39:40 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Support TIF_RESTORE_SIGMASK on x86_64 From: David Woodhouse To: Andrew Morton Cc: ak@muc.de, drepper@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20060703031937.274aa506.akpm@osdl.org> References: <1151919711.3000.82.camel@pmac.infradead.org> <20060703031937.274aa506.akpm@osdl.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 11:39:31 +0100 Message-Id: <1151923171.12290.6.camel@pmac.infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.2 (2.6.2-1.fc5.6.dwmw2.1) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by canuck.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2006-07-03 at 03:19 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > Could you please describe the signal mask fix? @@ -583,7 +583,7 @@ if (!user_mode(regs)) return; - if (!test_thread_flag(TIF_RESTORE_SIGMASK)) + if (test_thread_flag(TIF_RESTORE_SIGMASK)) oldset = ¤t->saved_sigmask; else oldset = ¤t->blocked; > Is that likely to have caused the above symptoms? Yeah, it'll screw up the signal mask all over the place. cf. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=180567 also https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=179228 > Should we be setting TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE before releasing that lock? Before releasing current->sighand->siglock? Nah, schedule() will check for pending signals -- it's not like racing with a wake_up() -- dwmw2