linux-kernel - Q: select_fallback_rq() && cpuset

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 9 Mar 2010 19:06:15 +0100
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Q: select_fallback_rq() && cpuset_lock()

Hello.

I tried to remove the deadlockable cpuset_lock() many times, but my
attempts were ignored by cpuset maintainers ;)

In particular, see http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=125261083613103

But now I have another question. Since 5da9a0fb673a0ea0a093862f95f6b89b3390c31e
cpuset_cpus_allowed_locked() is called without callback_mutex held by
try_to_wake_up().

And, without callback_mutex held, isn't it possible to race with, say,
update_cpumask() which changes cpuset->cpus_allowed? Yes, update_tasks_cpumask()
should fixup task->cpus_allowed later. But isn't it possible (at least
in theory) that try_to_wake_up() gets, say, all-zeroes in task->cpus_allowed
after select_fallback_rq()->cpuset_cpus_allowed_locked() if we race with
update_cpumask()->cpumask_copy() ?

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/