linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] add task handling notifier: base definitions

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1201115485.5443.41.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Wed, 23 Jan 2008 11:11:25 -0800
From:	Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com>
To:	Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...ell.com>
Cc:	Paul Jackson <pj@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] add task handling notifier: base definitions


On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 09:46 +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> +BLOCKING_NOTIFIER_HEAD(task_notifier_list);
> >> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(task_notifier_list);
> >> +ATOMIC_NOTIFIER_HEAD(atomic_task_notifier_list);
> >> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(atomic_task_notifier_list);
> >> +
> >
> >When these global notifier lists were proposed years ago folks at SGI
> >loudly objected with concerns over anticipated cache line bouncing on
> >512+ cpu machines. Is that no longer a concern?
> 
> I can't see an alternative, since the serialization is unavoidable.

There are definitely alternatives. Naturally they are all much more
complex than using a single notifier chain. You could do per-cpu chains
for example (ugly, I know..).

> >> @@ -121,6 +127,9 @@ void __put_task_struct(struct task_struc
> >>  	WARN_ON(atomic_read(&tsk->usage));
> >>  	WARN_ON(tsk == current);
> >> 
> >> +	atomic_notifier_call_chain(&atomic_task_notifier_list,
> >> +				   TASK_DELETE, tsk);
> >> +
> >>  	security_task_free(tsk);
> >>  	free_uid(tsk->user);
> >>  	put_group_info(tsk->group_info);
> >
> >Would the atomic notifier call chain be necessary if you hooked into an
> >earlier section of do_exit() instead?
> 
> I'm afraid it is, as I was told that sleeping in the do_exit() path is not
> generally possible.
> 
> Jan

Odd. Last I checked I thought I saw a bunch of calls in do_exit() that
could sleep. Only in certain sections and at the end did it appear to
prevent sleeping.

Sorry for the late reply.

Cheers,
	-Matt Helsley

--
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/