linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 6/6] Makes procs file writable to move all threads by tgid at once

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: <6599ad830908060328y21a008c1pc5ed5c27e0ec905d@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 6 Aug 2009 03:28:23 -0700
From:	Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>
To:	Benjamin Blum <bblum@...gle.com>, Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>,
	containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] Makes procs file writable to move all threads by tgid 
	at once

On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 2:58 AM, Louis Rilling<Louis.Rilling@...labs.com> wrote:
>
> mutex_lock_nested is not enough, since this would require putting each thread's
> mutex in a different class. Again, something like mutex_lock_nest_lock() is
> the solution, especially since Peter's recent improvement.
>

OK, well if lockdep can't currently handle the "writer takes a lock on
every thread" model, then maybe we should go with a simpler model
until someone shows a performance issue with it? Ben's original
patches had a per-task_struct lock, and a thread forking with CLONE_VM
would down_read() its group leader's lock. Something that's even
simpler (doesn't have to deal with thread group leader changing due to
an execve()), and avoids the per-task_struct overhead would be to put
the lock in sighand_struct instead (so only one per process). The
procs file writer does a down_write(&tsk->sighand->fork_sem), and
cgroup_fork() can do a down_read(&current->sighand->fork_sem) if
flags&CLONE_SIGHAND.

If you put it as the second member of sighand_struct, there wouldn't
even be any extra cacheline bouncing in the common case, since
copy_sighand() would already have brought that line into cache in
order to do atomic_inc(&current->sighand->count)

Paul
--
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/