Oleg Nesterov e0acd0a68e sched: fix the theoretical signal_wake_up() vs schedule() race ... This is only theoretical, but after try_to_wake_up(p) was changed to check p->state under p->pi_lock the code like __set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE); schedule(); can miss a signal. This is the special case of wait-for-condition, it relies on try_to_wake_up/schedule interaction and thus it does not need mb() between __set_current_state() and if(signal_pending). However, this __set_current_state() can move into the critical section protected by rq->lock, now that try_to_wake_up() takes another lock we need to ensure that it can't be reordered with "if (signal_pending(current))" check inside that section. The patch is actually one-liner, it simply adds smp_wmb() before spin_lock_irq(rq->lock). This is what try_to_wake_up() already does by the same reason. We turn this wmb() into the new helper, smp_mb__before_spinlock(), for better documentation and to allow the architectures to change the default implementation. While at it, kill smp_mb__after_lock(), it has no callers. Perhaps we can also add smp_mb__before/after_spinunlock() for prepare_to_wait(). Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>		2013-08-13 08:19:26 -07:00
..
asm	sched: fix the theoretical signal_wake_up() vs schedule() race	2013-08-13 08:19:26 -07:00
uapi/asm	Merge branch 'x86-asm-for-linus' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip	2013-07-02 16:21:45 -07:00