linux-kernel - Re: [linux-pm] 2.6.21-rc4-mm1: freezing of processes broken

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]

Message-Id: <1174446834.6665.3.camel@nigel.suspend2.net>
Date:	Wed, 21 Mar 2007 14:13:54 +1100
From:	Nigel Cunningham <nigel@...el.suspend2.net>
To:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@...ibm.com>,
	Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...il.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-pm@...ts.osdl.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] 2.6.21-rc4-mm1: freezing of processes broken

Hi.

On Tue, 2007-03-20 at 19:23 -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl> writes:
> 
> > On Tuesday, 20 March 2007 22:06, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, 20 March 2007 21:58, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> >> > Rafael J. Wysocki napsal(a):
> >> > > Actually, the problem is 100% reproducible on my system too and I doubt
> > it's
> >> > > caused by the recent freezer patches.
> >> > 
> >> > I don't know what exactly do you mean by recent, but 2.6.21-rc3-mm2 works
> >> > for me.
> >> 
> >> Thanks for the confirmation.
> >> 
> >> The patches I was talking about had already been in 2.6.21-rc3-mm2, so the
> >> reason of this failure must be different.
> >
> > Bisection shows that the freezing of processes has been broken by one of the
> > patches:
> >
> > remove-the-likelypid-check-in-copy_process.patch
> 
> Grr.  Oleg's review of remove-the-likelypid-check-in-copy-process
> showed it to be questionable (and it was just an optimization)
> so we can get rid of that one easily. 
> 
> Although all it did that was really questionable was add
> the idle process to the global process list and bump a process
> count when we forked the idle process.  Not dramatically dangerous
> things.
> 
> > use-task_pgrp-task_session-in-copy_process.patch
> 
> As I recall that patch was pretty trivial, and shouldn't have
> anything to do with the freezer.   The process freezer doesn't care
> about pids does it?

Could the freezer code be trying to freeze the idle thread as a result?

Regards,

Nigel

-
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/