linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/7] Freezer: Read PF_BORROWED

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:	Sat, 12 May 2007 15:43:17 +0530
From:	Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] Freezer: Read PF_BORROWED_MM in a nonracy way

On Sat, May 12, 2007 at 11:27:36AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Saturday, 12 May 2007 10:16, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
> > 
> > But I am not sure if this is the case with suspend/hibernate, since we
> > need to do a sys_sync() between try_freeze_tasks(FREEZE_USER_SPACE) and
> > try_to_freeze_tasks(FREEZE_KERNEL_THREADS).
> 
> From the point of view of syncing it's only necessary to make sure that we
> won't freeze a kernel thread that's needed for the syncing.  We can have an
> additional user space task running at this point.

Ok. Say we're might have an additional user space task which is not
frozen (say A).

> > 
> > So should we perform that check in reparent_to_kthreadd() ?
> > We are protected by the tasklist_lock there, no?
> 
> Yes.  Still, I think the daemonize()ed threads should clear their TIF_FREEZE
> flag unconditionally right after they have called exit_mm().  So that would be
> in daemonize().
> 
> Or, perhaps, it's better to clear TIF_FREEZE (unconditionally) in exit_mm(),
> after we've done tsk->mm = NULL?  Oleg, what do you think?
>
Is the following scenario possible? 

FREEZE_KERNEL_THREADS: 
1) Mark all leftover threads as freezeable. That would include 'A'.
2) 'A' is now daemonised and we clear TIF_FREEZE in exit_mm().
3) 'A' calls try_to_freeze() but doesn't enter the refrigerator.

Hmm, on second thought, this shouldn't matter .
The subsequent iteration will set A's TIF_FREEZE flag anyway, right? 
So I think it should be ok to unconditionally clear the TIF_FREEZE flag
in exit_mm() after tsk->mm = NULL.


> Greetings,
> Rafael 

Thanks and Regards
gautham.
-- 
Gautham R Shenoy
Linux Technology Center
IBM India.
"Freedom comes with a price tag of responsibility, which is still a bargain,
because Freedom is priceless!"
-
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/