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:	Thu, 25 Aug 2011 23:01:41 +0200
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, menage@...gle.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, arnd@...db.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/16] freezer: make exiting tasks properly unfreezable

On Thursday, August 25, 2011, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 08/25, Tejun Heo wrote:
> >
> > Yeah, what 'freeze' should do is a bit vague on the edges, I think.
> > The freezer can't really halt the whole system operation including
> > IOs.  Tasks aren't the only source which can kick those off.  There
> > are other asynchronous sources,
> 
> Of course.
> 
> But still I can't understand why it is better to consider the exiting
> task as "frozen" from the very beginning, right after PTRACE_EVENT_EXIT.
> do_exit() does a lot of misc things, and this patch simply makes it
> "invisible" to the freezer. This looks "unsafe" even if this is fine
> for suspend/etc.

Suspend needs the freezer to ensure that processes (user space mostly)
won't interact with drivers in any way while devices are being suspended,
so if a process is in a state in which it won't talk to any driver
and make changes to filesystems any more, it's irrelevant from the
suspend's point of view.

> To me, try_to_freeze_tasks() should succed when all threads either
> sleep in refrigerator(), or ->state = TASK_DEAD (the final schedule()
> was called). Until then try_to_freeze_tasks() should retry.
> 
> But since we can't see the threads after exit_notify (in general),
> the current ->exit_state check looks reasonable.
> 
> But again, again, I won't argue.
> 
> > Rafael, can you please enlighten us on the subject?
> 
> Please ;)

Is the above sufficient?

Rafael
--
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/