linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 06/16] freezer: make exiting tasks properly unfreezable

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, 23 Aug 2011 17:52:21 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	rjw@...k.pl, menage@...gle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	arnd@...db.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/16] freezer: make exiting tasks properly unfreezable

Hi.

Not a comment, but the question. Probably falls into the "read the
whole series" category too.

On 08/19, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
> There's no point in freezing an exiting task.

This is not clear to me. Probably this is fine, I do not know what
the callers of freeze_processes() actually expect.

> @@ -915,6 +913,12 @@ NORET_TYPE void do_exit(long code)
>
>  	ptrace_event(PTRACE_EVENT_EXIT, code);
>
> +	/*
> +	 * With ptrace notification done, there's no point in freezing from
> +	 * here on.  Disallow freezing.
> +	 */
> +	current->flags |= PF_NOFREEZE;

OK, but what PF_NOFREEZE actually means?

Apart from "dont try to freeze" it means "no need to freeze", yes?

IOW, try_to_freeze_tasks() can succeed even if we have a lot of
exitinig task which can make some activity, say, disk i/o. Is this
correct?

Once again, I do not understand the problem-space at all, jus I am
curious.

Thanks,

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/