linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] PM / QoS: Fix workqueue deadlock when using pm_qos_update_request

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]

Date:	Tue, 13 Aug 2013 13:01:46 -0400
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
Cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PM / QoS: Fix workqueue deadlock when using
 pm_qos_update_request_timeout()

Hello,

On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 09:46:26AM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> >> +	if (PM_QOS_DEFAULT_VALUE != req->node.prio)
> >> +		pm_qos_update_target(
> >> +				pm_qos_array[req->pm_qos_class]->constraints,
> >> +				&req->node, PM_QOS_UPDATE_REQ,
> >> +				PM_QOS_DEFAULT_VALUE);
> > Maybe it'd be cleaner to add a param or internal variant of
> > pm_qos_update_request()?
> 
> Maybe, but I was trying to make a minimal fix here.

Hmmm.... it just looks like things can easily get out of sync with the
complex function call.  I don't think it'll be too invasive if you
introduce an internal variant which doesn't do the canceling.  Rafael,
what do you think?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/