linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] work_on_cpu: Use our own workqueue.

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: <20090126171618.GA32091@elte.hu>
Date:	Mon, 26 Jan 2009 18:16:18 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	Mike Travis <travis@....com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>, cpufreq@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] work_on_cpu: Use our own workqueue.


* Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:

> > > Yet another kernel thread for each CPU.  All because of some dung 
> > > way down in arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c.
> > > 
> > > Is there no other way?
> > 
> > Perhaps, but this works.  Trying to be clever got me into this mess in 
> > the first place.
> > 
> > We could stop using workqueues and change work_on_cpu to create a 
> > thread every time, which would give it a new failure mode so I don't 
> > know that everyone could use it any more.  Or we could keep a single 
> > thread around to do all the cpus, and duplicate much of the workqueue 
> > code.
> > 
> > None of these options are appealing...
> 
> Can we try harder please?  10 screenfuls of kernel threads in the ps 
> output is just irritating.
> 
> How about banning the use of work_on_cpu() from schedule_work() handlers 
> and then fixing that driver somehow?

Yes, but that's fundamentally fragile: anyone who happens to stick the 
wrong thing into keventd (and it's dead easy because schedule_work() is 
easy to use) will lock up work_on_cpu() users.

work_on_cpu() is an important (and lowlevel enough) facility to be 
isolated from casual interaction like that.

> What _is_ the bug anyway?  The only description we were given was
> 
>   Impact: remove potential clashes with generic kevent workqueue
> 
>   Annoyingly, some places we want to use work_on_cpu are already in
>   workqueues.  As per Ingo's suggestion, we create a different
>   workqueue for work_on_cpu.
> 
> which didn't bother telling anyone squat.
> 
> When was this bug added?  Was it added into that driver or was it due to 
> infrastructural changes?

This fixes lockups during bootup caused by the cpumask changes/cleanups 
which changed set_cpus_allowed()+on-kernel-stack-cpumask_t to 
work_on_cpu().

Which was fine except it didnt take into account the interaction with the 
kevents workqueue and the very wide cross section for worklet dependencies 
that this brings with itself. work_on_cpu() was rarely used before so this 
didnt show up.

	Ingo
--
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/