linux-kernel - Re: utime/stime decreasing on thread exit

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:	Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:31:43 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:	Hidetoshi Seto <seto.hidetoshi@...fujitsu.com>,
	Spencer Candland <spencer@...ehost.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: utime/stime decreasing on thread exit

On Mon, 2009-11-09 at 18:20 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:

> > I just checked .22 and there we seem to hold p->sighand->siglock over
> > the full task iteration.
> 
> Yes. Then thread_group_cputime() was changed so that it didn't itearate
> over sub-threads, then this callsite was move outside of ->siglock, now
> it does while_each_thread() again.
> 
> > So we might as well revert back to that if
> > people really mind counting things twice :-)
> 
> Stanislaw has already sent the patch, but I don't know what happened
> with this patch:
> 
> 	[PATCH 1/2] posix-cpu-timers: avoid do_sys_times() races with __exit_signal()
> 	http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=124505545131145

That patch has the siglock in the function calling
thread_group_cputime(), the 22 code had it near the loop proper, which
to me seems a more sensible thing, since there could be more callers,
no?

--
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/