linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] cgroup: Fixes the un-paired cgroup lock problem

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, 04 Nov 2009 13:11:10 +0800
From:	Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Liu Aleaxander <aleaxander@...il.com>
CC:	Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	containers@...ts.osdl.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cgroup: Fixes the un-paired cgroup lock problem

Liu Aleaxander wrote:
> From: Liu Aleaxander <Aleaxander@...il.com>
> Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 09:27:06 +0800
> Subject: [PATCH] Fixes the un-paired cgroup lock problem
> 
> In cgroup_lock_live_group, it locks the cgroup by mutex_lock, while in the
> cgroup_tasks_write, it unlock it by cgroup_unlock. Even though they are
> equal, but I do think we should make it pair.
> 
> BTW, should we replace others with cgroup_lock and cgroup_unlock?
> Since we already have a wrapper one and it's meaningful.
> 

Before I read the email body, I thought there is a bug where
there is a lock without unlock or vise versa.

I agree the case here can be called "unpaired", but I'm not
convinced this patch is needed. The code is not buggy or
confusing. So the patch neither fixes a bug nor make the code
more readable.

--
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/