linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 6/6] cgroup: kill subsys->can_attach_task(), pre_attach() and attach

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20110901125822.GB24650@somewhere.redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 1 Sep 2011 14:58:24 +0200
From:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	rjw@...k.pl, paul@...lmenage.org, lizf@...fujitsu.com,
	linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, matthltc@...ibm.com,
	kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] cgroup: kill subsys->can_attach_task(), pre_attach()
 and attach_task()

On Thu, Sep 01, 2011 at 08:22:21PM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 03:42:24PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > My task counter subsystem patchset brings a cancel_attach_task() callback
> > that cancels can_attach_task() effects.
> > 
> > I thought that rebased on top of your patch it's going to be merged inside
> > cancel_attach() but OTOH we can't cancel the effect of failed migration
> > on a thread that way.
> > 
> > May be we need to keep a cancel_attach_task() just for that purpose?
> 
> We can do that but I think that becomes a bit too complex and fragile.
> That path won't be traveled unless it races against exit.  Bugs will
> be difficult to detect and reproduce.  In this respect, the current
> code already seems racy.  ->can_attach (or other methods in the attach
> path) and ->exit can race each other and I don't think all subsystems
> handle that properly.

I guess subsystems don't care about that currently, although I haven't
checked. But the task counter will need this per thread cancellation in
migration failure, without the need for any synchronization between
can_attach, attach and exit.

Now if we want to solve this with a synchronization there, either
we task_lock() every tasks in the group in the beginning of cgroup_attach_proc().
But that's not very nice. Or we use cgroup_mutex on cgroup_exit() exit,
but that's even worse.

I guess we need the leader->sighand->siglock on both cgroup_attach_proc()
and cgroup_exit(). Besides we may have more reasons to have that:

https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/8/15/342

> 
> IMHO the right thing to do here is simplifying synchronization rules
> so that nothing else happens while migration is in progress.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> -- 
> tejun
--
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/