linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH UPDATED 03/10] threadgroup: extend threadgroup

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:	Thu, 24 Nov 2011 20:02:18 -0800
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	paul@...lmenage.org, rjw@...k.pl, 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, oleg@...hat.com,
	kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH UPDATED 03/10] threadgroup: extend threadgroup_lock() to
 cover exit and exec

On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> Linus, this is something being scheduled for the next merge window.
> It extends threadgroup locking which cgroup used to do to exclude only
> fork path so that it includes exit and exec paths.  threadgroup
> locking is used by cgroup to implement process-scope cgroup migration.
>
> Migration happens in multiple steps, at each of which the matching
> method of each cgroup plugin is called.  When a whole process is being
> migrated, methods being called at those different steps expect to see
> consistent image of the thread group.

Ugh.

I see why you want to do this, but I really don't much like some of it.

I've got a few questions:

 - do you even *need* two separate locks at all? If you extend the
threadgroup_fork_lock to cover exec/exit too (and rename it), then why
does that separate cred_guard_mutex make sense at all?

  Taking two locks for the common exit case seems disgusting. What do
the separate locks buy us?

 - could we possible avoid the lock(s) entirely for the
single-threaded case? The fact that ptrace wants to serialize makes me
say "maybe we can't avoid it", but I thought I'd ask. Even if we do
need/want two separate locks, do we really want to take them both for
the case that shouldn't really need even a single one?

Hmm? Simplifying the locking rules is always a good idea, and I think
this seems to make some of it more straightforward, but at the same
time I shudder when I look at some of the patches in the series that
nest locking three locks deep. Ugh.

                 Linus
--
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/