linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kmemleak: Fix scheduling-while-atomic bug

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:	Wed, 1 Jul 2009 11:30:15 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	git-commits-head@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kmemleak: Fix scheduling-while-atomic bug


* Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com> wrote:

> > The minimal fix below removes scan_yield() and adds a 
> > cond_resched() to the outmost (safe) place of the scanning 
> > thread. This solves the regression.
> 
> With CONFIG_PREEMPT disabled it won't reschedule during the bss 
> scanning but I don't see this as a real issue (task stacks 
> scanning probably takes longer anyway).

Yeah. I suspect one more cond_resched() could be added - i just 
didnt see an obvious place for it, given that scan_block() is being 
called with asymetric held-locks contexts.

	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/