[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YCZ056SJDGrgXCss@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2021 13:30:31 +0100
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
syzbot <syzbot+bfdded10ab7dcd7507ae@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
syzkaller-bugs <syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com>,
Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: possible deadlock in start_this_handle (2)
On Fri 12-02-21 12:22:07, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 08:18:11PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > On 2021/02/12 1:41, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > But I suspect we have drifted away from the original issue. I thought
> > > that a simple check would help us narrow down this particular case and
> > > somebody messing up from the IRQ context didn't sound like a completely
> > > off.
> > >
> >
> > From my experience at https://lkml.kernel.org/r/201409192053.IHJ35462.JLOMOSOFFVtQFH@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp ,
> > I think we can replace direct PF_* manipulation with macros which do not receive "struct task_struct *" argument.
> > Since TASK_PFA_TEST()/TASK_PFA_SET()/TASK_PFA_CLEAR() are for manipulating PFA_* flags on a remote thread, we can
> > define similar ones for manipulating PF_* flags on current thread. Then, auditing dangerous users becomes easier.
>
> No, nobody is manipulating another task's GFP flags.
Agreed. And nobody should be manipulating PF flags on remote tasks
either.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists