linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] workqueue: Keep activate-order equals to queue

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:	Wed, 19 Sep 2012 10:31:28 -0700
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] workqueue: Keep activate-order equals to
 queue_work()-order

Hello, Lai.

On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 05:57:12PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> (disorder of execution is OK for current WQ. because we can launch new worker
> to execute the next work if the previous one is waiting something)
> 
> But I concern activate-order, not execution order. A non-delayed work
> may delay a delayed work for ever, and if a non-delayed work needs something
> which will be produced by delayed one, the two work may wait each other.
> 
> {
> a subsystem queues a work to release resource.
> and them
> a subsystem queues a work to use the resource.
> }
> Is this behavior acceptable?

Even on workqueues with a rescuer, forward progress is not guaranteed
if there are more than one co-dependent work items.  workqueue doesn't
guarantee anything regarding activation or execution order and any
user which depends on that is broken.

In general, I think it's a bad idea to give that kind of guarantee and
encourage such usages which can lead to extremely subtle breakages
which cannot be detected in any automated way - we don't have any way
to mark dependencies among work items.

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/