[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110908010530.GD3987@mtj.dyndns.org>
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 10:05:30 +0900
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, matthltc@...ibm.com,
paul@...lmenage.org, containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] freezer: fix wait_event_freezable/__thaw_task races
Hello,
On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 08:22:17PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> wait_event_freezable() and wait_event_freezable_timeout() stop
> the waiting if try_to_freeze() fails. This is not right, we can
> race with __thaw_task() and in this case
>
> - wait_event_freezable() returns the wrong ERESTARTSYS
>
> - wait_event_freezable_timeout() can return the positive
> value while condition == F
Indeed, nice catch. This one actually is pretty dangerous. We
probably want to make a separate fix for this and backport it to
-stable?
> Change the code to always check __retval/condition before return.
>
> Note: with or without this patch the timeout logic looks strange,
> probably we should recalc timeout if try_to_freeze() returns T.
>
> Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Yeap, with freezable_with_signal gone, this looks correct & simpler to
me but it would be nice if you can sprinkle some documentation while
at it. :)
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists