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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20121029141755.GC20757@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:	Mon, 29 Oct 2012 15:17:55 +0100
From:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
To:	Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
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 Mon 29-10-12 18:06:34, Glauber Costa wrote:
> 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... =)

Yes, I just wanted to keep this one cgroup core only to enable further
cgroup clean ups easier. Dropping the earlier in the series could
introduce regressions which I tried to avoid as much as possible.

Thanks

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
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/