[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140317180416.GA15708@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 19:04:16 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Sree Harsha Totakura <sreeharsha@...akura.in>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Jeff Dike <jdike@...toit.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: [PATCH 0/2] (Was: pppd service crash in linux-3.13.6)
On 03/15, Peter Hurley wrote:
>
> On 03/14/2014 05:04 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>>
>> But it can't even know who called call_usermodehelper(). Besides,
>> cgroup_release_agent() uses UMH_WAIT_EXEC, so the caller can continue
>> and disappear completely before the usermode process has any chance
>> to do something.
>
> I'm just hypothesizing potential breakage, since the order of teardown
> is sensitive to changes, and I didn't do a complete audit of all the
> possibilities.
Yes, I understand your concerns. Still I do not see how cgroup_exit()
can depend on tty/namespace.
> If you feel strongly about moving disassociate_tty(), I won't object.
It is not that I feel really strongly... just in looks better to me.
If nothing else:
1. If we actually can not do disassociate_ctty() before, say,
cgroup_exit(), then we should understand and document the
reason.
2. task_work_add() can have more users in drivers/tty which
can be triggered by disassociate_tty() paths. So I think
it would be nice to call it before task_work_exit().
2/2 is offtopic and hopefully trivial.
Oleg.
--
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