linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8 3/3] cgroups: make procs file writable

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]

Date:	Fri, 18 Mar 2011 09:54:33 -0700
From:	Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>
To:	Ben Blum <bblum@...rew.cmu.edu>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	ebiederm@...ssion.com, lizf@...fujitsu.com, matthltc@...ibm.com,
	oleg@...hat.com, David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Miao Xie <miaox@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 3/3] cgroups: make procs file writable

On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Ben Blum <bblum@...rew.cmu.edu> wrote:
>
> Hmm, you may be right; my understanding of RCU is not complete. But
> actually I think the BUG_ON should just be removed, since we're about to
> drop locks before handing off to cgroup_attach_proc anyway (so at no
> important part is the assertion guaranteed), which will detect and
> EAGAIN if such a race happened.

Sounds good.

>
> Hmm, well, should I make this assumption, then? The code would not be
> more complicated either way, really. I kind of prefer it as it is...
>

OK, I guess either way is OK until we can prove otherwise :-)

Paul
--
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/