linux-kernel - Re: [RFD 3/9] Display /proc/stat information per cgroup

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:	Wed, 28 Sep 2011 12:23:13 -0300
From:	Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
CC:	Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <paul@...lmenage.org>,
	<lizf@...fujitsu.com>, <daniel.lezcano@...e.fr>,
	<jbottomley@...allels.com>
Subject: Re: [RFD 3/9] Display /proc/stat information per cgroup

On 09/27/2011 07:21 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-09-27 at 15:42 -0300, Glauber Costa wrote:
>>>> +static inline void task_cgroup_account_field(struct task_struct *p,
>>>> +                                            cputime64_t tmp, int index)
>>>> +{
>>>> +       struct kernel_stat *kstat;
>>>> +       struct task_group *tg = task_group(p);
>>>> +
>>>> +       do {
>>>> +               kstat = this_cpu_ptr(tg->cpustat);
>>>> +               kstat->cpustat[index] = cputime64_add(kstat->cpustat[index],
>>>> +                                                     tmp);
>>>> +               tg = tg->parent;
>>>> +       } while (tg);
>>>> +}
>>>
>>> What protects the walk (tg = tg->parent)? Could you please document it
>> I think that the fact that the hierarchy only grows down, thus parent
>> never changes (or am I wrong?)
>>
>> And since we run all this with preempt disabled and with the runqueue
>> locked, we should have no problems.
>>
>> Do you agree?
>
> Right, so the tg can't be destroyed unless its empty, us finding this
> task in it means its not empty, we require rq->lock or p->pi_lock to
> move the task.
>
> However, afaict we don't actually have any of those locks.
>
> That said, it should be sufficient to wrap the whole thing in
> rcu_read_lock(), accounting one tick funny because a cgroup move race
> isn't the end of the world and its really no different than moving the
> task a little later anyway.
>
> task_group() should complain about this if you compile a kernel with
> CONFIG_PROVE_RCU.


Yeah, wrapping it around rcu_read_lock looks fine.
--
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/