linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/5] vfork: don't freezer_count() for in-kernel users of CLONE

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]

Date:	Fri, 15 Feb 2013 16:28:40 +0100
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@...omium.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] vfork: don't freezer_count() for in-kernel users
	of CLONE_VFORK

On 02/14, Mandeep Singh Baines wrote:
>
> We don't need to call freezer_do_not_count() for in-kernel users
> of CLONE_VFORK since exec will get called in bounded time.

OK,

> We don't want to call freezer_count() for in-kernel users because
> they may be holding locks.

Who? We should not do this anyway. And __call_usermodehelper() doesn't
afaics.

OK, its caller (process_one_work) does lock_map_acquire() for debugging
purposes, this can "confuse" print_held_locks_bug(). But this thread is
PF_NOFREEZE ?

> @@ -722,9 +722,11 @@ static int wait_for_vfork_done(struct task_struct *child,
>  {
>  	int killed;
>
> -	freezer_do_not_count();
> +	if (current->mm)
> +		freezer_do_not_count();

And if you want to exclude in-kernel users, then perhaps PF_KTHREAD check
will look a bit better.

Oleg.

--
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/