linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] threadgroup: extend threadgroup

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, 10 Oct 2011 10:11:05 -0700
From:	Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:	rjw@...k.pl, paul@...lmenage.org, lizf@...fujitsu.com,
	linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, fweisbec@...il.com,
	matthltc@...ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>,
	Ben Blum <bblum@...rew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] threadgroup: extend threadgroup_lock() to cover
 exit and exec

Hello, Oleg.

Sorry about the very long delay.  I moved cross atlantic and had a
pretty long vacation while doing it.  Hope you can still remember some
of this one. :)

On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 07:37:23PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > With this change, threadgroup_lock() guarantees that the target
> > threadgroup will remain stable - no new task will be added, no new
> > PF_EXITING will be set and exec won't happen.
> 
> To me, this is the only "contradictory" change,

What do you mean "contradictory"?  Can you please elaborate?

> > +	/*
> > +	 * Release threadgroup and make sure we are holding no locks.
> > +	 */
> > +	threadgroup_change_done(tsk);
> 
> I am wondering, can't we narrow the scope of threadgroup_change_begin/done
> in do_exit() path?
> 
> The code after 4/4 still has to check PF_EXITING, this is correct. And yes,
> with this patch PF_EXITING becomes stable under ->group_rwsem. But, it seems,
> we do not really need this?
> 
> I mean, can't we change cgroup_exit() to do threadgroup_change_begin/done
> instead? We do not really care about PF_EXITING, we only need to ensure that
> we can't race with cgroup_exit(), right?

If we confine our usage to cgroup, excluding just against
cgroup_exit() might work although this is still a bit nasty.  ie. some
callbacks might not expect half torn-down tasks in methods other than
the exit callback.

Also, it makes the mechanism unnecessarily cgroup-specific without
gaining much if anything.  It's per-threadgroup rwsem so contention
isn't a problem and narrowing critical section isn't likely to be
beneficial (maybe slightly increase the chance of the cacheline for
the lock to be hot?).

Thank you.

-- 
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/