linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] cgroup: change locking order in attach_task_by

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]

Date:	Sun, 18 Sep 2011 20:56:21 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
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, fweisbec@...il.com,
	matthltc@...ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] cgroup: change locking order in
	attach_task_by_pid()

On 09/05, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
> cgroup_mutex is updated to nest inside threadgroup_fork_lock instead
> of the other way around.  threadgroup locking is scheduled to be
> updated to cover all threadgroup altering operations and nesting it
> inside cgroup_mutex complicates locking dependency unnecessarily.

Could you please explain this change?

I can't understand why threadgroup_lock() under cgroup_mutex is bad.
Do you mean we can deadlock otherwise?

And, this means we can't change cpuset_do_move_task() to do
threadgroup_lock().

Oleg.

--
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/