linux-kernel - [PATCH 0/1] do not abuse ->cred_guard_mutex in threadgroup

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: <20130309200046.GA8149@redhat.com>
Date:	Sat, 9 Mar 2013 21:00:46 +0100
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>
Cc:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	cgroups@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 0/1] do not abuse ->cred_guard_mutex in threadgroup_lock()

On 03/09, Li Zefan wrote:
>
> We don't need both patches for 3.9, so we'll queue Oleg's fix for 3.9 and
> yours for 3.10?

Well. OK, please see 1/1 (compile tested only).

But I still like the patch from Tejun more... Except _perhaps_ my
patch is better for 3.9 just because it is simpler.

And. I still think that probably we can avoid thread_group_leader()
recheck-and-restart logic in attach_task_by_pid(). But even if this
is true (and thus we can revert the changes in de_thread), we should
do this on top of Tejun's patch.

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/