linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] cgroups: 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: <20100804043328.GB11950@ghc17.ghc.andrew.cmu.edu>
Date:	Wed, 4 Aug 2010 00:33:28 -0400
From:	Ben Blum <bblum@...rew.cmu.edu>
To:	Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>
Cc:	Ben Blum <bblum@...rew.cmu.edu>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
	lizf@...fujitsu.com, matthltc@...ibm.com, oleg@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] cgroups: read-write lock CLONE_THREAD forking
 per threadgroup

On Tue, Aug 03, 2010 at 08:44:01PM -0700, Paul Menage wrote:
>  On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 4:57 PM, Ben Blum <bblum@...rew.cmu.edu> wrote:
> > +	 * The threadgroup_fork_lock prevents threads from forking with
> > +	 * CLONE_THREAD while held for writing. Use this for fork-sensitive
> > +	 * threadgroup-wide operations. It's taken for reading in fork.c in
> > +	 * copy_process().
> > +	 * Currently only needed write-side by cgroups.
> > +	 */
> > +	struct rw_semaphore threadgroup_fork_lock;
> > +#endif
> 
> I'm not sure how best to word this comment, but I'd prefer something like:
> 
> "The threadgroup_fork_lock is taken in read mode during a CLONE_THREAD
> fork operation; taking it in write mode prevents the owning
> threadgroup from adding any new threads and thus allows you to
> synchronize against the addition of unseen threads when performing
> threadgroup-wide operations. New-process forks (without CLONE_THREAD)
> are not affected."

That sounds good.

> As far as the #ifdef mess goes, it's true that some people don't have
> CONFIG_CGROUPS defined. I'd imagine that these are likely to be
> embedded systems with a fairly small number of processes and threads
> per process. Are there really any such platforms where the cost of a
> single extra rwsem per process is going to make a difference either in
> terms of memory or lock contention? I think you should consider making
> these additions unconditional.

That's certainly an option, but I think it would be clean enough to put
static inline functions just under the signal_struct definition.
Thoughts?

> 
> Paul
> 

-- Ben
--
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/