| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20111222020157.GR9213@google.com> Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 18:01:57 -0800 From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com> Cc: tip-bot for Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>, linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hpa@...or.com, mingo@...hat.com, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, pjt@...gle.com, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...e.hu Subject: Re: [tip:sched/core] sched: Fix cgroup movement of forking process Hello, On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 02:54:42AM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > Frederic, so, it seems we actually have race conditions here. I > > really wish cgroup made sure that things like this can't happen even > > if we pay a bit of overhead in relatively cold paths. I could be > > being unrealistic tho. Any ideas? > > Hmm, I'm a bit confused about the issue. But doesn't this patch fix the issue? Yeah, I was just saying it would be nice if we don't have to fix the issue. > Also the parent can't be calling sched_fork() and cgroup_exit() at > the same time. Hmmm... so this one can't happen anymore but there are races involving cgroup_exit() which doesn't have anything to do with threadgroup lock (Dalsuke has more patches), so this doesn't really matter. Let's forget about this thread. 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