linux-kernel - Re: 3.11-rc regression bisected: s2disk does not work (was Re: [PATCH v3 13/16] futex: use freezable blocking call)

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: <CA+55aFzUVPJe96z8V0F-znc8ZcpJid7LEeYww80M-Mx=S91tAA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 22 Jul 2013 17:32:48 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Colin Cross <ccross@...roid.com>
Cc:	Michael Leun <lkml20130126@...ton.leun.net>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@...omium.org>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	linux-nfs <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: 3.11-rc regression bisected: s2disk does not work (was Re: [PATCH
 v3 13/16] futex: use freezable blocking call)

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Colin Cross <ccross@...roid.com> wrote:
>
> I think the right solution is to add a flag to the freezing task that
> marks it unfreezable.  I  think PF_NOFREEZE would work, although it is
> normally used on kernel threads, can you see if the attached patch
> helps?

Hmm. That does seem to be the right thing to do, but I wonder about
the *other* callers of freeze_processes() IOW, kexec and friends.

So maybe we should do this in {freeze|thaw}_processes() itself, and
just make the rule be that the caller of freeze_processes() itself is
obviously not frozen, and has to be the same one that then thaws
things?

Colin? Rafael? Comments?

                Linus
--
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/