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  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:	Tue, 23 Feb 2010 15:32:32 +0800
From:	Miao Xie <>
To:	David Rientjes <>
CC:	Nick Piggin <>,,, Lee Schermerhorn <>
Subject: Re: [regression] cpuset,mm: update tasks' mems_allowed in time (58568d2)

on 2010-2-23 6:06, David Rientjes wrote:
>>>> Right, but the callback_mutex was being removed by this patch.
>>> I was making the case for it to be readded :)
>> But cgroup_mutex is held when someone changes cs->cpus_allowed or doing hotplug,
>> so I think callback_mutex is not necessary in this case.
> Then why is it taken in update_cpumask()?

when we read cs->cpus_allowed, we need just hold one of callback_mutex and cgroup_mutex.
If we want to change cs->cpus_allowed, we must hold callback_mutex and cgroup_mutex.

>>  /*
>> @@ -1391,11 +1393,10 @@ static void cpuset_attach(struct cgroup_subsys *ss, struct cgroup *cont,
>>  	if (cs == &top_cpuset) {
>>  		cpumask_copy(cpus_attach, cpu_possible_mask);
>> -		to = node_possible_map;
>>  	} else {
>>  		guarantee_online_cpus(cs, cpus_attach);
>> -		guarantee_online_mems(cs, &to);
>>  	}
>> +	guarantee_online_mems(cs, &to);
>>  	/* do per-task migration stuff possibly for each in the threadgroup */
>>  	cpuset_attach_task(tsk, &to, cs);
> Do we need to set cpus_attach to cpu_possible_mask?  Why won't 
> cpu_active_mask suffice?

If we set cpus_attach to cpu_possible_mask, we needn't do anything for tasks in the top_cpuset when
doing cpu hotplug. If not, we will update cpus_allowed of all tasks in the top_cpuset.

>> @@ -2090,15 +2091,19 @@ static int cpuset_track_online_cpus(struct notifier_block *unused_nb,
>>  static int cpuset_track_online_nodes(struct notifier_block *self,
>>  				unsigned long action, void *arg)
>>  {
>> +	nodemask_t oldmems;
> Is it possible to use NODEMASK_ALLOC() instead?

Yes. I will write another patch to fix it.(These are the same problems in the other functions) 

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists