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:	Tue, 1 Jul 2008 00:14:17 +0200
From:	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>,
	Max Krasnyansky <maxk@...lcomm.com>, Paul Jackson <pj@....com>,
	Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] workqueues: make get_online_cpus() useable for
	work->func()

On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 03:43:49PM +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 08:51:31PM +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > workqueue_cpu_callback(CPU_DEAD) flushes cwq->thread under
> > cpu_maps_update_begin(). This means that the multithreaded workqueues can't
> > use get_online_cpus() due to the possible deadlock, very bad and very old
> > problem.
> > 
> > Introduce the new state, CPU_POST_DEAD, which is called after
> > cpu_hotplug_done() but before cpu_maps_update_done().
> > 
> > Change workqueue_cpu_callback() to use CPU_POST_DEAD instead of CPU_DEAD.
> > This means that create/destroy functions can't rely on get_online_cpus()
> > any longer and should take cpu_add_remove_lock instead.
> 
> Ah, nice!
> 
> > --- 26-rc2/kernel/cpu.c~WQ_4_GET_ONLINE_CPUS	2008-05-18 15:44:18.000000000 +0400
> > +++ 26-rc2/kernel/cpu.c	2008-06-29 20:03:19.000000000 +0400
> > @@ -261,6 +261,11 @@ out_allowed:
> >  	set_cpus_allowed_ptr(current, &old_allowed);
> >  out_release:
> >  	cpu_hotplug_done();
> > +	if (!err) {
> 
> This should be (!err && !cpu_online(cpu)), no?
> 
> This is because it might be that __stop_machine_run() succeeded, but
> take_cpu_down() failed and therefore our cpu is still online.

Erk.. it's ok as is since err will contain the return value of take_cpu_down()
after err = kthread_stop(p).
Never mind, just ignore me :)
--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ