linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] workqueue: not allow recursion run

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:	Thu, 22 Jan 2009 19:22:12 +0100
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc:	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] workqueue: not allow recursion run_workqueue

On 01/22, Frédéric Weisbecker wrote:
>
> 2009/1/22 Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>:
> > On 01/22, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> >>
> >> BUG_ON seems perhaps a bit too much for such case. The system
> >> will run in an endless loop because of a mistake that will not have
> >> necessarily a fatal end.
> >
> > Confused. Why do you think the system will run in an endless loop?
> > cwq-thread will exit.
>
> Because a BUG_ON panics and then spin for ever. Yeah I shoud have said "panic",
> sorry... It was just to tell that a BUG_ON is the end...

BUG_ON() only panics when panic_on_oops == T, no?

But let me repeat, this is minor issue. I agree with WARN().

> >> WARN_ON should be enough (plus the warn that lockdep will raise
> >> too in this case).
> >
> > and if cwq-thread proceeds after WARN_ON() it will be "lost" anyway
> > because it will sleep forever.
>
> You want to say spin forever?
> Why would it? cwq->lock is unlocked at this time.

No, it will sleep forever, unless I missed something.

Even if ->worklist is empty, ->current_work != NULL, we are ->current_work.
We insert the barrier work and call wait_for_completion(). But nobody
can do complete() except us.

> If we keep the usual path:
>
> if (cwq->thread == current) {
> 		run_workqueue(cwq);
> 		active = 1;
> 	}
>
> it shouldn't hurt.

If we keep this path then we have the different patch ;) In that
case of course BUG_ON() is overkill.


But again, as Peter says, we already have the warning from lockdep.

Oleg.

--
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/