linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 4/6] cgroups: forbid pre

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: <508E8D6A.5040602@parallels.com>
Date:	Mon, 29 Oct 2012 18:06:34 +0400
From:	Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
To:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
CC:	<linux-mm@...ck.org>, <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/6] cgroups: forbid pre_destroy callback to fail

On 10/29/2012 06:04 PM, Glauber Costa wrote:
> On 10/26/2012 03:37 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> Now that mem_cgroup_pre_destroy callback doesn't fail (other than a race
>> with a task attach resp. child group appears) finally we can safely move
>> on and forbit all the callbacks to fail.
>> The last missing piece is moving cgroup_call_pre_destroy after
>> cgroup_clear_css_refs so that css_tryget fails so no new charges for the
>> memcg can happen.
>> We cannot, however, move cgroup_call_pre_destroy right after because we
>> cannot call mem_cgroup_pre_destroy with the cgroup_lock held (see
>> 3fa59dfb cgroup: fix potential deadlock in pre_destroy) so we have to
>> move it after the lock is released.
>>
> 
> If we don't have the cgroup lock held, how safe is the following
> statement in mem_cgroup_reparent_charges():
> 
> if (cgroup_task_count(cgrp) || !list_empty(&cgrp->children))
> 	return -EBUSY;
> 
> ?
> 
> IIUC, although this is not generally safe, but it would be safe here
> because at this point we are expected to had already set the removed bit
> in the css. If this is the case, however, this condition is impossible
> and becomes useless - in which case you may want to remove it from Patch1.
> 
Which I just saw you doing in patch5... =)



--
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/