[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <m1k44mt8e7.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 12:40:32 -0800
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.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
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com> writes:
> 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?
I don't see a no locks are held check but call_usermodehelper in the
blocking case could certainly use one.
For the sysfs remove case lockdep should work.
Eric
--
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