linux-kernel - Re: Problem with freezable workqueues

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 28 Feb 2007 09:54:24 +0100
From:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>, Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>,
	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Problem with freezable workqueues

Hi!

> > I'm afraid this is racy. We can't touch *cwq, it may be freed. Suppose
> > that another thread does destroy_workqueue(), and we thaw that thread
> > before cwq->thread.
> 
> Okay, in that case I'd suggest removing create_freezeable_workqueue() and
> make all workqueues nonfreezable once again for 2.6.21 (as far as I know, only
> the two XFS workqueues are affected).
> 
> Pavel, would that be acceptable?

Not sure... I really dislike XFS running while we are doing
swsusp. I'd like to move in direction of freezeable workqueues in the
future.

Anyway, if it gets us out of current trouble... yes I guess we can do
it.
									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/