linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] for account_group_exec_runtime(), make sure ->signal can't be freed under rq->lock

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 11 Nov 2008 09:28:02 -0800
From:	Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@...gle.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, adobriyan@...il.com,
	Doug Chapman <doug.chapman@...com>,
	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] for account_group_exec_runtime(), make sure ->signal
	can't be freed under rq->lock

On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 18:16 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@...gle.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 11:35 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > * Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
> > > > The patch is ugly, but I don't see the better fix for now. Needs the 
> > > > review from Peter/Ingo.
> > > this is indeed too ugly, and if we do it we'll get both this ugliness 
> > > and the CPU loop upstream forever. Frank, if you dont have time to fix 
> > > this code, then i guess the best thing is to do the full revert that 
> > > Peter sent.
> > 
> > Well, at the moment I'm up to my armpits in alligators.  That said, 
> > we're going to have to pull in this code regardless, ugliness and 
> > all, since we're guaranteed to run into the soft lockup bug 
> > otherwise.  This means that I'll have strong incentive to come back 
> > and readdress the fix to remove the ugliness and address Peter's 
> > concerns.  I have no idea when that will be, however.
> 
> well, we wont leave buggy code in there for .28 - it could trigger 
> anytime on any SMP box, no matter how narrow the race is.

Sorry, by "we" I meant where I work, not the Linux kernel folks; I guess
it's as true for you guys as it is for us but I'm certainly not in a
position to speak for you.

> I've picked up the spin-wait fix from Oleg, because it fixes the bug. 
> But we should really fix the fundamental issues here too.

Agreed, in spades.  In fact I plan to track this internally so it
doesn't fall off my radar.
-- 
Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@...gle.com>
Google, Inc.

--
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/