linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] workqueue: rescuer_thread() processes all pwqs before exit

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:	Thu, 17 Apr 2014 12:27:20 -0400
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] workqueue: rescuer_thread() processes all pwqs
 before exit

On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 12:21:51AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> > Hmmm?  Isn't this the same race condition that you tried to remove by
> > relocating the test?  It doesn't matter what destroy_workqueue() does,
> > the rescuer may get preempted inbetween and anything can happen
> > inbetween including someone maydaying and initiation of
> > destroy_workqueue().  Your patch doesn't change the situation at all.
> > It can still return with non-empty mayday list.
> 
> You are right. We need a additional atomic check.

I don't think increasing the number of checks will do anything.  We
just need to keep the test where it is now and exit after doing the
loop.  ie.

	set TASK_INTRRUPTIBLE
	test should_stop and cache the result

	spin_lock_irq();

	while () {
		process the list
	}

	spin_unlock_irq();

	if (was should_stop asserted?)
		exit;

	schedule();

Should do, no?

-- 
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/