linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Add kerneldoc for flush_scheduled

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: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0908121310460.23954-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Date:	Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:25:23 -0400 (EDT)
From:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add kerneldoc for flush_scheduled_work()

On Wed, 12 Aug 2009, James Bottomley wrote:

> > >      2. If you have to hold a lock while waiting:
> > >              1. If it's a global lock, make sure you're using a local
> > >                 queue and that nothing you submitted to the queue can
> > >                 take the lock
> > >              2. If it's a local lock, you may use a global queue but
> > >                 must still make sure that nothing you submitted to the
> > >                 queue can take the lock.

> > Anyway, 2.1 and 2.2 are wrong.  They should read: "... make sure that

(I overstated things; 2.1 is okay.  But 2.2. is wrong.  And 
flush_scheduled_work() definitely concerns a global queue.)

> > nothing submitted to the queue calls any of your routines that can take
> > the lock."  The point being that even though _you_ don't submit
> > anything bad to the queue, somebody else might do so.
> 
> Semantically "make sure that nothing submitted to the queue can take a
> lock" means exactly that ... it includes all routines called by the
> queue function.

James, you wrote "make sure that nothing _you_ submitted to the queue" 
(my emphasis).  That is quite different from "make sure that nothing 
submitted to the queue".  One is doable, the other isn't.

> > If you use cancel_work_sync() instead of flush_scheduled_work() then 
> > the rules become less onerous.  In place of your 2.1 and 2.2, we have:
> > 
> > 	Make sure the work item you are cancelling cannot take
> > 	the lock.
> > 
> > This is much easier to verify.
> 
> It's the same, surely ... you must verify that everything going on to
> the queue obeys the rules otherwise you get things on it which can't be
> cancelled ...

Not at all.  With cancel_work_sync() you must verify only that the
item you want to cancel obeys the rules.  There's no need to check the
other items -- and a public workqueue like keventd_wq certainly will
contain other items.

> and thus either the advice to call cancel is wrong, or we
> could call flush because the locking rules are obeyed.

No; as shown above, your logic is flawed.

Alan Stern

P.S.: Ingo, I rather expected to see you comment on this thread.  What 
is your opinion?

--
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/