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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <52FB1C72.60605@huawei.com>
Date:	Wed, 12 Feb 2014 15:02:10 +0800
From:	Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
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

On 2014/2/12 14:37, Tejun Heo wrote:
> 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?
> 

I'm fine to stick with V1.

I'm pretty confident it's safe, as we can increment sb refcnt without
any checking or locking (even cgroup_mutex as the comment says) in
cgroup_create().

--
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/