[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87ipjxdfbg.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 13:25:47 +1030
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: + kmod-avoid-deadlock-by-recursive-kmod-call.patch added to -mm tree
On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 18:56:12 +0100, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
> > @@ -449,6 +460,16 @@ int call_usermodehelper_exec(struct subp
> > retval = -EBUSY;
> > goto out;
> > }
> > + /*
> > + * Worker thread must not wait for khelper thread at below
> > + * wait_for_completion() if the thread was created with CLONE_VFORK
> > + * flag, for khelper thread is already waiting for the thread at
> > + * wait_for_completion() in do_fork().
> > + */
> > + if (wait != UMH_NO_WAIT && current == kmod_thread_locker) {
> > + retval = -EBUSY;
> > + goto out;
> > + }
>
> So, this is because khelper_wq's max_active == 1.
>
> Can't we simply kill khelper_wq and use system_unbound_wq instead?
I'd prefer that, because then we'd hit the existing "too many modprobes"
check.
Thanks,
Rusty.
--
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