[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1201200848040.25882@router.home>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 08:49:57 -0600 (CST)
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>, davem <davem@...emloft.net>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>, kaber@...sh.net,
pablo@...filter.org, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Hung task when calling clone() due to netfilter/slab
On Thu, 19 Jan 2012, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> On the flip side removing from sysfs with locks held must be done
> carefully, and as a default I would recommend not to hold locks over
> removing things from sysfs. As removal blocks waiting for all of the
> callers into sysfs those sysfs attributes to complete.
>
> It looks like you are ok on the removal because none of the sysfs
> attributes appear to take the slub_lock, just /proc/slabinfo. But
> it does look like playing with fire.
Ok then I guess my last patch is needed to make sysfs operations safe.
It may be good to audit the kernel for locks being held while calling
sysfs functions. Isnt there a lockdep check that ensures that no locks are
held?
--
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