linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/5] cifs: eliminate usage of kthread

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, 14 Oct 2008 20:29:31 -0500
From:	"Steve French" <smfrench@...il.com>
To:	"Jeff Layton" <jlayton@...hat.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, niallain@...il.com,
	linux-cifs-client@...ts.samba.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] cifs: eliminate usage of kthread_stop for cifsd

On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 7:41 PM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com> wrote:
> When cifs_demultiplex_thread was converted to a kthread based kernel
> thread, great pains were taken to make it so that kthread_stop would be
> used to bring it down. This just added unnecessary complexity since we
> needed to use a signal anyway to break out of kernel_recvmsg.
>
> Also, cifs_demultiplex_thread does a bit of cleanup as it's exiting, and
> we need to be certain that this gets done. It's possible for a kthread
> to exit before its main function is ever run if kthread_stop is called
> soon after its creation. While I'm not sure that this is a real problem
> with cifsd now, it could be at some point in the future if cifs_mount is
> ever changed to bring down the thread quickly.
>
> The upshot here is that using kthread_stop to bring down the thread just
> adds extra complexity with no real benefit. This patch changes the code
> to use the original method to bring down the thread, but still leaves it
> so that the thread is actually started with kthread_run.
>
> This seems to fix the deadlock caused by the reproducer in this bug
> report:
>
> https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5720

I agree with what Jeff is suggesting in this patch, and have no
problem merging the patch, but want to make sure that those who wanted
cifs to switch all of cifs threads to kthread usage are also ok with
this.

I don't like the patch 1 (disabling a section of code code) and 5
(basically reenabling similar code fixing some problems) though - has
to be a better way to do this by rewriting the function once.



-- 
Thanks,

Steve
--
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/