linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 7/8] Adds functionality to read/write lock CLONE

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: <4A8CB750.7040509@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Thu, 20 Aug 2009 10:39:12 +0800
From:	Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>
CC:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, bblum@...rew.cmu.edu,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/8] Adds functionality to read/write lock CLONE_THREAD
 fork()ing per-threadgroup

Paul Menage wrote:
> From: Ben Blum <bblum@...gle.com>
> 
> 
> Adds functionality to read/write lock CLONE_THREAD fork()ing per-threadgroup
> 
> This patch adds an rwsem that lives in a threadgroup's sighand_struct (next to
> the sighand's atomic count, to piggyback on its cacheline), and two functions
> in kernel/cgroup.c (for now) for easily+safely obtaining and releasing it. If
> another part of the kernel later wants to use such a locking mechanism, the
> CONFIG_CGROUPS ifdefs should be changed to a higher-up flag that CGROUPS and
> the other system would both depend on, and the lock/unlock functions could be
> moved to sched.c or so.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ben Blum <bblum@...gle.com>
> Signed-off-by: Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>
>

Looks fine to me.

Acked-by: Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>

... 

> +struct sighand_struct *threadgroup_fork_lock(struct task_struct *tsk)
> +{
> +	struct sighand_struct *sighand;
> +	struct task_struct *p;
> +
> +	/* tasklist lock protects sighand_struct's disappearance in exit(). */
> +	read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
> +	if (likely(tsk->sighand)) {
> +		/* simple case - check the thread we were given first */
> +		sighand = tsk->sighand;
> +	} else {
> +		sighand = NULL;
> +		/*
> +		 * tsk is exiting; try to find another thread in the group
> +		 * whose sighand pointer is still alive.
> +		 */
> +		rcu_read_lock();

since we are holding tasklist_lock, I think we don't need to
take rcu lock?

> +		list_for_each_entry_rcu(p, &tsk->thread_group, thread_group) {
> +			if (p->sighand) {
> +				sighand = tsk->sighand;

s/tsk->sighand/p->sighand

> +				break;
> +			}
> +		}
> +		rcu_read_unlock();
> +	}
--
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/