[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1305578094.2915.53.camel@work-vm>
Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 13:34:54 -0700
From: John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "Ted Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] comm: Introduce comm_lock seqlock to protect
task->comm access
On Sat, 2011-05-14 at 20:12 +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> >> Can you please explain why we should use seqlock? That said,
> >> we didn't use seqlock for /proc items. because, plenty seqlock
> >> write may makes readers busy wait. Then, if we don't have another
> >> protection, we give the local DoS attack way to attackers.
> >
> > So you're saying that heavy write contention can cause reader
> > starvation?
>
> Yes.
>
> >> task->comm is used for very fundamentally. then, I doubt we can
> >> assume write is enough rare. Why can't we use normal spinlock?
> >
> > I think writes are likely to be fairly rare. Tasks can only name
> > themselves or sibling threads, so I'm not sure I see the risk here.
>
> reader starvation may cause another task's starvation if reader have
> an another lock.
So the risk is a thread rewriting its own comm over and over could
starve some other critical task trying to read the comm.
Ok. It makes it a little more costly, but fair enough.
thanks
-john
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists