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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 12:13:24 -0700 From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> Cc: Kent Overstreet <koverstreet@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, "Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@...ux-iscsi.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Percpu tag allocator On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 12:06:10 -0700 Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote: > Hello, Andrew, Kent. > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 04:38:54PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > ... > > > +unsigned percpu_tag_alloc(struct percpu_tag_pool *pool, gfp_t gfp) > > > +{ > > > + DEFINE_WAIT(wait); > > > + struct percpu_tag_cpu_freelist *tags; > > > + unsigned long flags; > > > + unsigned tag, this_cpu; > > > + > > > + while (1) { > > > + local_irq_save(flags); > ... > > > + schedule(); > > > + } > > > > Does this loop need a try_to_freeze()? > > I don't think so. Kernel tasks should never enter freezer without it > explicitly knowing it. It should be something evident in the > top-level control flow. Freezer acts as a giant lock and entering > freezer deep underneath where the task could be holding random number > of resources and locks can easily develop into a deadlock. As I understand it, if a task is stuck in this loop at freeze time, the whole freeze attempt will fail. But it's been a long time since I thought about or worked on this stuff. Another issue is device takedown ordering - this thread is blocked waiting for tags to be returned by IO completion, so there may be issues where the hardware has been shut down. I really don't know - I'm flagging it as something which should be thought about, tested, etc. > If this allocation wait is gonna be visible to userland, what's > necessary probably would be making the sleeping interruptible. The > freezer will then make the alloc fail and control should return to the > signal delivery path where it'll be frozen without holding any > resources. Maybe. Interruptible sleeps here will be a bit of a nuisance with signals. Poke Rafael ;) -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists