linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] cgroup: protect modifications to cgroup->idr with cgroup

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: <20140212063713.GA7984@mtj.dyndns.org>
Date:	Wed, 12 Feb 2014 01:37:13 -0500
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>
Cc:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Cgroups <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] cgroup: protect modifications to cgroup->idr with
 cgroup_mutex

Hello, Li.

On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 02:28:53PM +0800, Li Zefan wrote:
> v2:
> - Don't call deactivate_super() inside cgroup_mutex, as cgroup_kill_sb()
> will be called if sb refcnt reaches 0. I don't think this can happen,
> as cgroup_create() is called through vfs, so vfs should guarantee the
> superblock won't disappear. Still better not depend on it even my guess
> is probably correct.

If the deadlock can't actually happen, I don't really care either way
as the code goes away after kernfs conversion anyway.  I've already
applied v1, so if you think this change is important, can you send an
incremental patch?

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/