linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 02/16] freezer: don't unnecessarily set PF

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: <20110822150523.GZ4607@sortiz-mobl>
Date:	Mon, 22 Aug 2011 17:05:23 +0200
From:	Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	rjw@...k.pl, menage@...gle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	arnd@...db.de, oleg@...hat.com,
	Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>,
	"Gustavo F. Padovan" <padovan@...fusion.mobi>,
	wwang <wei_wang@...lsil.com.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/16] freezer: don't unnecessarily set PF_NOFREEZE
 explicitly

Hi Tejun,

On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 04:16:08PM +0200, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Some drivers set PF_NOFREEZE in their kthread functions which is
> completely unnecessary and racy - some part of freezer code doesn't
> consider cases where PF_NOFREEZE is set asynchronous to freezer
> operations.
> 
> In general, there's no reason to allow setting PF_NOFREEZE explicitly.
> Remove them and change the documentation to note that setting
> PF_NOFREEZE directly isn't allowed.

For the mfd parts:

Acked-by: Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>

Cheers,
Samuel.

-- 
Intel Open Source Technology Centre
http://oss.intel.com/
--
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/