>
> Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >>
> >>collect_signal: sigqueue_free:
> >>
> >> list_del_init(&first->list);
> >> spin_lock_irqsave(lock, flags);
> >>
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> >> if (!list_empty(&q->list))
> >> list_del_init(&q->list);
> >> spin_unlock_irqrestore(lock,
> >> flags);
> >> q->flags &= ~SIGQUEUE_PREALLOC;
> >>
> >> __sigqueue_free(first); __sigqueue_free(q);
> >>
> >
> >collect_signal() is always called under ->siglock which is also taken by
> >sigqueue_free(), so this is not possible.
> >
> >Basically, this patch is the same one-liner I sent you before
> >
> >
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=118772206603453&w=2
> >
> >(Thanks for the additional testing and report, btw).
> >
> >P.S. It would be nice to know if this patch solves the problems reported
> >by Jeremy, but his email is disabled.
> >
> >Oleg.
> >
> >
> I know, using current->sighand->siglock to prevent one sigqueue
> is free twice. I want to know whether it is possible that the two
> function is called in different thread. If that, the spin_lock is useless.
