linux-kernel - Re: Is not locking task_lock in cgroup

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, 18 Oct 2012 17:38:35 -0700
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc:	Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>,
	containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Is not locking task_lock in cgroup_fork() safe?

Hello, Frederic.

On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 10:53:47PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > For now, I'll revert the patches and cc stable.  Let's think about
> > improving it later.
> 
> Ok for reverting in cgroup_fork(). Is it necessary for the
> cgroup_post_fork() thing? I don't immediately see any race involved
> there.

Even if there isn't an actual race, the comment is dead wrong.  I'm
reverting the following three patches.  Let's try again later.

  7e381b0eb1 ("cgroup: Drop task_lock(parent) on cgroup_fork()")
  7e3aa30ac8 ("cgroup: Remove task_lock() from cgroup_post_fork()")
  c84cdf75cc ("cgroup: Remove unnecessary task_lock before fetching css_set on migration")

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/