linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] stop_machine: reimplement using cpuhog

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: <20100308190606.GB9149@redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 8 Mar 2010 20:06:07 +0100
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
	sivanich@....com, heiko.carstens@...ibm.com,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, mingo@...e.hu, peterz@...radead.org,
	dipankar@...ibm.com, josh@...edesktop.org,
	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] stop_machine: reimplement using cpuhog

On 03/09, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
>  int __stop_machine(int (*fn)(void *), void *data, const struct cpumask *cpus)
>  {
> ...
> +	/* Set the initial state and hog all online cpus. */
> +	set_state(&smdata, STOPMACHINE_PREPARE);
> +	return hog_cpus(cpu_online_mask, stop_cpu, &smdata);
>  }

Could you please confirm this is correct?

I am not sure I understand how the code looks with the patch applied,
but the lockless set_state() above can confuse another stop_machine()
in progress?

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/