linux-kernel - Re: Is not locking task_lock in cgroup

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <5081145A.2010307@huawei.com>
Date:	Fri, 19 Oct 2012 16:50:34 +0800
From:	Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
CC:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	<containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>, <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Is not locking task_lock in cgroup_fork() safe?

On 2012/10/19 8:58, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, again.
> 
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 05:38:35PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> Even if there isn't an actual race, the comment is dead wrong.  I'm
>> reverting the following three patches.  Let's try again later.
>>
>>   7e381b0eb1 ("cgroup: Drop task_lock(parent) on cgroup_fork()")
>>   7e3aa30ac8 ("cgroup: Remove task_lock() from cgroup_post_fork()")
> 
> So, after some more looking, I think the following is correct and
> doesn't need to be reverted.  It's depending on threadgroup locking
> from migration path to synchronize against exit path which is always
> performed.
> 
>>   c84cdf75cc ("cgroup: Remove unnecessary task_lock before fetching css_set on migration")
> 
> Frederic, were you trying to say that the above commit is correct?
> Li, do you agree?
> 

This one does look innocent.

--
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/