| commit | 7cf7db8df0b78076eafa4ead47559344ca7b7a43 | [log] [tgz] |
|---|---|---|
| author | Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> | Thu Dec 10 00:53:21 2009 +0000 |
| committer | Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> | Thu Dec 10 23:04:11 2009 +0100 |
| tree | 5e536389e23d6c00fc93e51a4e4b90cfeac3fbc6 | |
| parent | 14d8c9f3c09e7fd7b9af80904289fe204f5b93c6 [diff] |
signals: Fix more rcu assumptions 1) Remove the misleading comment in __sigqueue_alloc() which claims that holding a spinlock is equivalent to rcu_read_lock(). 2) Add a rcu_read_lock/unlock around the __task_cred() access in __sigqueue_alloc() This needs to be revisited to remove the remaining users of read_lock(&tasklist_lock) but that's outside the scope of this patch. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> LKML-Reference: <20091210004703.269843657@linutronix.de>