linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] cgroup: Remove task_lock() from cgroup_post

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, 22 Dec 2011 16:55:49 +0800
From:	Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
CC:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	Cgroups <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Paul Menage <paul@...lmenage.org>,
	Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] cgroup: Remove task_lock() from cgroup_post_fork()

Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> cgroup_post_fork() is protected between threadgroup_change_begin()
> and threadgroup_change_end() against concurrent changes of the
> child's css_set in cgroup_task_migrate(). Also the child can't
> exit and call cgroup_exit() at this stage, this means it's css_set
> can't be changed with init_css_set concurrently.
> 
> For these reasons, we don't need to hold task_lock() on the child
> because it's css_set can only remain stable in this place.
> 
> Let's remove the lock there.
> 
> NOTE: We could do something else: move threadgroup_change_end()
> before cgroup_post_fork() and keep the task_lock() which, combined
> with the css_set_lock, would be enough to synchronize against
> cgroup_task_migrate()'s change on child->cgroup and its cglist.
> Because outside that, the threadgroup lock doesn't appear to be
> needed on cgroup_post_fork().
> 

To narrow the scope of the threadgroup lock? I think it's preferable to keep
cgroup_post_fork() inside the lock, to make things simpler and we have
the same lock rule for both cgroup_fork() and cgroup_post_fork().

> Let's debate!
> 
> Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
> Cc: Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>
> Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
> Cc: Containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
> Cc: Cgroups <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>
> Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
> Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
> Cc: Paul Menage <paul@...lmenage.org>
> Cc: Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@...omium.org>
> ---
>  kernel/cgroup.c |   11 ++++++++---
>  1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/cgroup.c b/kernel/cgroup.c
> index 4936d88..d0dbf72 100644
> --- a/kernel/cgroup.c
> +++ b/kernel/cgroup.c
> @@ -4622,10 +4622,15 @@ void cgroup_post_fork(struct task_struct *child)
>  {
>  	if (use_task_css_set_links) {
>  		write_lock(&css_set_lock);
> -		task_lock(child);
> -		if (list_empty(&child->cg_list))
> +		if (list_empty(&child->cg_list)) {
> +			/*
> +			 * It's safe to use child->cgroups without task_lock()
> +			 * here because we are protected through
> +			 * threadgroup_change_begin() against concurrent
> +			 * css_set change in cgroup_task_migrate()
> +			 */

Also explain why it won't race with cgroup_exit()? You were not quite confident
about that before Oleg's explanation. ;)

>  			list_add(&child->cg_list, &child->cgroups->tasks);
> -		task_unlock(child);
> +		}
>  		write_unlock(&css_set_lock);
>  	}
>  }
--
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/