linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH(experimental) 2/2] Fix freezer-kthread

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: <200704202345.23823.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date:	Fri, 20 Apr 2007 23:45:22 +0200
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
Cc:	Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, vatsa@...ibm.com,
	paulmck@...ibm.com, pavel@....cz
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH(experimental) 2/2] Fix freezer-kthread_stop race

On Friday, 20 April 2007 23:20, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 04/20, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 10:54:36AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > 
> > > Hmm, can't we do something like this instead:
> > > 
> > > ---
> > >  kernel/kthread.c |   10 ++++++++++
> > >  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
> > > 
> > > Index: linux-2.6.21-rc7/kernel/kthread.c
> > > ===================================================================
> > > --- linux-2.6.21-rc7.orig/kernel/kthread.c
> > > +++ linux-2.6.21-rc7/kernel/kthread.c
> > > @@ -13,6 +13,7 @@
> > >  #include <linux/file.h>
> > >  #include <linux/module.h>
> > >  #include <linux/mutex.h>
> > > +#include <linux/freezer.h>
> > >  #include <asm/semaphore.h>
> > > 
> > >  /*
> > > @@ -232,6 +233,15 @@ int kthread_stop(struct task_struct *k)
> > > 
> > >  	/* Now set kthread_should_stop() to true, and wake it up. */
> > >  	kthread_stop_info.k = k;
> > > +	if (!(current->flags & PF_NOFREEZE)) {
> > > +		/* If we are freezable, the freezer will wait for us */
> > > +		task_lock(k);
> > > +		k->flags |= PF_NOFREEZE;
> > > +		if (frozen(k))
> > > +			k->flags &= ~PF_FROZEN;
> > > +
> > > +		task_unlock(k);
> > > +	}
> > 
> > Yes, we can do this for now since the tasks have only two freeze states,
> > namely Freezeable and Non Freezeable. 
> 
> No, we can't change k->flags, k owns its ->flags, and it is not atomic.

Yes, but if we move PF_FROZEN to a separate field in task_struct with
appropriate locking, then it won't be a problem any more IMO.
 
> Rafael, may I suggest you to document task_lock() in thaw_process() ? This
> looks really confusing, as if task_lock() protects "p->flags &= ~PF_FROZEN".
> 
> Actually, task_lock() is needed to prevent the race with refrigerator()
> when the freezing fails, but this is not obvious.

Sure, I will.

Greetings,
Rafael
-
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/