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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 09:20:54 +0200 From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> Cc: rjw@...k.pl, paul@...lmenage.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, arnd@...db.de Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/16] freezer: use dedicated lock instead of task_lock() + memory barrier Hello, On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 07:51:16PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 08/19, Tejun Heo wrote: > > > > it's by no means a > > hot path and the priority is staying unintrusive and safe. This patch > > makes it simply use a dedicated lock > > Agreed. but could you explain why it should be irq-safe? This is not > clear from the changelog. It doesn't need to be. cgroup_freezer assumes irq-safety so I didn't want to change it. I was thinking about dropping irq-safety from all of them later on. > Off-topic, but fake_signal_wake_up() is not safe if the caller > try_to_freeze_cgroup(). Unlike try_to_freeze_tasks() (which holds > tasklist) we can race with the exiting thread, ->sighand can be > NULL. Indeed, guess we'll need to grab tasklist_lock around try_to_freeze_cgroup() too. Thanks. -- tejun -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists