| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <1207172527.11976.58.camel@bobble.smo.corp.google.com> Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2008 14:42:07 -0700 From: Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@...gle.com> To: Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: posix-cpu-timers revamp On Wed, 2008-04-02 at 13:34 -0700, Frank Mayhar wrote: > One little gotcha we just ran into, though: When checking > tsk->signal->(anything) in run_posix_cpu_timers(), we have to hold > tasklist_lock to avoid a race with release_task(). This is going to > make even the null case always cost more than before. This race, by the way, is because we're dereferencing task->signal at interrupt once per tick. We ran into a case where a process was going through release_task() and being torn down on one CPU while running a timer tick on another. Under load. It's not a very likely race but with sufficient time or load it's pretty much inevitable. My thought is to move thread_group_cputime from the signal structure to hanging directly off the task structure. It would be shared in the same way as the signal structure is now but would be deallocated with the task structure rather than the signal structure. This should mean that I could avoid getting tasklist_lock under most conditions. Thoughts? -- Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@...gle.com> Google, Inc. -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists