linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] cpu_hotplug: don't play with current->cpus

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: <20090730163258.GB3617@redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 30 Jul 2009 18:32:58 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
	Miao Xie <miaox@...fujitsu.com>,
	Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] cpu_hotplug: don't play with current->cpus_allowed

On 07/30, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>
> Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > _cpu_down() changes the current task's affinity and then recovers it at
> > the end. The problems are well known: we can't restore old_allowed if it
> > was bound to the now-dead-cpu, and we can race with the userspace which
> > can change cpu-affinity during unplug.
> >
> > _cpu_down() should not play with current->cpus_allowed at all. Instead,
> > take_cpu_down() can migrate the caller of _cpu_down() after __cpu_disable()
> > removes the dying cpu from cpu_online_mask.
> >
> >  static int __ref take_cpu_down(void *_param)
> >  {
> >  	struct take_cpu_down_param *param = _param;
> > +	unsigned int cpu = (unsigned long)param->hcpu;
> >  	int err;
> >
> >  	/* Ensure this CPU doesn't handle any more interrupts. */
> > @@ -181,6 +183,8 @@ static int __ref take_cpu_down(void *_pa
> >  	raw_notifier_call_chain(&cpu_chain, CPU_DYING | param->mod,
> >  				param->hcpu);
> >
> > +	if (task_cpu(param->caller) == cpu)
> > +		move_task_off_dead_cpu(cpu, param->caller);
>
> move_task_off_dead_cpu() calls cpuset_cpus_allowed_locked() which
> needs callback_mutex held. But actually we don't hold it, it'll
> will corrupt the work of other task which holds callback_mutex.
> Is it right?

Of course it is not. That is why I tried to kill cpuset_lock() first.

And I still think it must die. But I don't know how to remove it.

Oleg.

--
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/