linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH cgroup/for-3.7-fixes 1/2] Revert "cgroup: Remove task_lock() from cgroup_post

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20121019210738.GA1180@google.com>
Date:	Fri, 19 Oct 2012 14:07:38 -0700
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc:	Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>,
	containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH cgroup/for-3.7-fixes 1/2] Revert "cgroup: Remove
 task_lock() from cgroup_post_fork()"

Hello, Frederic.

On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 03:44:20PM -0400, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > For -stable, I think it's better to revert.  If you want to remove
> > task_lock, let's do it for 3.8.
> 
> I don't think that a wrong comment justifies a patch to stable.

I'm not really sure whether it's safe or not.  It seems all usages are
protected by write locking css_set_lock but maybe I'm missing
something and as the commit is born out of confusion, I'm very
inclined to revert it by default.  Are you sure this one is safe?

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/