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
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2011 20:03:14 +0200 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl> To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, arnd@...db.de, oleg@...hat.com, lizf@...fujitsu.com, paul@...lmenage.org, Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com>, Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com> Subject: Re: [GIT PULL pm-next] freezer: fix various bugs and simplify implementation On Sunday, August 21, 2011, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, Rafafel. > > On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 06:33:38PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > ssh://master.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tj/misc.git freezer > > > > Pulled and stored in the pm-freezer branch in my tree, and merged into > > the linux-next branch. > > Cool. > > > > FYI, this patchset will cause a conflict with s390 TIF flag fix patch. > > > The conflict is trivial and Stephen should be able to handle it > > > without any problem. Also, I'm planning on doing some further work on > > > cgroup freezer and then will try to bridge it with job control. If > > > that plan fans out, I might ask Oleg to pull from the pm tree. > > > > I'm not sure if Linus likes it. He generally doesn't want the trees > > that he pulls from to be entangled this way. > > The job control portion has to go through Linus anyway, so let's see > how that flies. > > > > This shouldn't matter too much either way but it *might* be a good idea to > > > keep this line of patches in a separate branch. > > > > I'm going to keep it in the pm-freezer branch anyway (there may be patches > > on top of it, though) > > Yeah, I'm pretty sure it will need some fix too. Speaking of which, the addition of might_sleep() to try_to_freeze() causes a badly looking backtrace to appear during reboot on ARM, so I'd prefer it to go into __refrigerator(). Please tell me what you think of the patch below. Rafael --- From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl> Subject: PM / Freezer: Move might_sleep() from try_to_freeze() There are some code paths that call try_to_freeze() from interrupt context, but doing so they know that the current process cannot possible be freezing (e.g. during reboot on ARM). However, the recently added might_sleep() annotation in try_to_freeze() triggers in those cases, making it look like there were bugs in those places, which really isn't the case. Therefore move might_sleep() from try_to_freeze() to __refrigerator() so that it doesn't produce false positives. Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl> --- include/linux/freezer.h | 1 - kernel/freezer.c | 2 ++ 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) Index: linux/include/linux/freezer.h =================================================================== --- linux.orig/include/linux/freezer.h +++ linux/include/linux/freezer.h @@ -41,7 +41,6 @@ extern void thaw_processes(void); static inline bool try_to_freeze(void) { - might_sleep(); if (likely(!freezing(current))) return false; return __refrigerator(false); Index: linux/kernel/freezer.c =================================================================== --- linux.orig/kernel/freezer.c +++ linux/kernel/freezer.c @@ -54,6 +54,8 @@ bool __refrigerator(bool check_kthr_stop bool was_frozen = false; long save; + might_sleep(); + /* * No point in checking freezing() again - the caller already did. * Proceed to enter FROZEN. -- 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