linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] stop_machine: dequeue work before signal completion

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: <87k3qksw1n.fsf@sejong.aot.lge.com>
Date:	Thu, 07 Feb 2013 11:21:56 +0900
From:	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	Hillf Danton <dhillf@...il.com>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] stop_machine: dequeue work before signal completion

Hi Tejun and Hillf,

On Wed, 6 Feb 2013 10:47:49 -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 08:38:43PM +0800, Hillf Danton wrote:
>> As handled by the kernel thread, work is dequeued first for further actions.
>
> Ditto as the previous patch.
>
>> Signed-off-by: Hillf Danton <dhillf@...il.com>
>> ---
>> 
>> --- a/kernel/stop_machine.c	Wed Feb  6 19:57:12 2013
>> +++ b/kernel/stop_machine.c	Wed Feb  6 20:02:12 2013
>> @@ -334,23 +334,24 @@ static int __cpuinit cpu_stop_cpu_callba
>>  #ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU
>>  	case CPU_UP_CANCELED:
>>  	case CPU_POST_DEAD:
>> -	{
>> -		struct cpu_stop_work *work;
>> -
>>  		sched_set_stop_task(cpu, NULL);
>>  		/* kill the stopper */
>>  		kthread_stop(stopper->thread);
>>  		/* drain remaining works */
>>  		spin_lock_irq(&stopper->lock);
>> -		list_for_each_entry(work, &stopper->works, list)
>> +		while (!list_empty(&stopper->works)) {
>> +			struct cpu_stop_work *work;
>> +			work = list_first_entry(&stopper->works,
>> +					struct cpu_stop_work, list);
>> +			list_del_init(&work->list);
>>  			cpu_stop_signal_done(work->done, false, 0);
>> +		}
>>  		stopper->enabled = false;
>>  		spin_unlock_irq(&stopper->lock);
>
> Why does this matter?  It's inside spinlock.  What's being made better
> by this change?

IIUC the work should be deleted from the list, otherwise it'd trigger
BUG_ON when the cpu gets online again.

Thanks,
Namhyung
--
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/