From 7cf7db8df0b78076eafa4ead47559344ca7b7a43 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 00:53:21 +0000
Subject: [PATCH] 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>
---
Reading git-format-patch failed