linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] freezer: make fake_signal_wake_up wake TASK

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, 26 Oct 2011 15:55:48 -0400
From:	Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, trond.myklebust@...app.com,
	smfrench@...il.com, linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
	john@...va.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] freezer: make fake_signal_wake_up wake
 TASK_KILLABLE tasks too

On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 21:14:28 +0200
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:

> On Tuesday, October 11, 2011, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 08:18:48 +0200
> > Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz> wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > Hi!
> > > 
> > > > TASK_KILLABLE is often used to put tasks to sleep for quite some time.
> > > > One of the most common uses is to put tasks to sleep while waiting for
> > > > replies from a server on a networked filesystem (such as CIFS or NFS).
> > > > 
> > > > Unfortunately, fake_signal_wake_up does not currently wake up tasks
> > > > that are sleeping in TASK_KILLABLE state. This means that even if the
> > > > code were in place to allow them to freeze while in this sleep, it
> > > > wouldn't work anyway.
> > > > 
> > > > This patch changes this function to wake tasks in this state as well.
> > > > This should be harmless -- if the code doing the sleeping doesn't have
> > > > handling to deal with freezer events, it should just go back to sleep.
> > > 
> > > I'm pretty sure this will break something; but that does not mean it
> > > is bad idea, just that it should be merged early and tested a lot.
> > > 
> > 
> > FWIW, I looked at most of the places in the kernel that do
> > TASK_KILLABLE sleeps and they look like they'll handle this correctly.
> > The main one I wasn't sure about was mem_cgroup_handle_oom(), but I
> > think it'll do the right thing too. I certainly could have missed
> > something though...
> > 
> > In any case, would you mind merging this via the linux-pm tree for 3.2?
> 
> I will push it for 3.2.
> 

Hi Rafael,

Trond asked if you would also be willing to push patches 3 and 4 in
this series for 3.2 as well [1]? Note that patch #4 got another revision so
we'll want to make sure that you get that one. I can resend the
nfs/sunrpc patches if that will help...

[1]: I think Steve F is going to push patch #2, so that one shouldn't
be an issue. 

-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.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/