linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 04/10] workqueue: destroy worker directly in the idle timeout handler

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:	Wed, 7 May 2014 09:41:42 -0400
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/10] workqueue: destroy worker directly in the idle
 timeout handler

On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 09:38:39PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 9:12 PM, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
> > Hello, Lai.
> >
> > On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 03:10:20PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> >> 1) complete() can't be called inside attach_mutex due to the worker
> >>    shouldn't access to the pool after complete().
> >
> > Sure, complete it after releasing the lock.  Shutdown can't complete
> > before the completion gets completed, right?
> >
> >> 2) put_unbound_pool() may called from get_unbound_pool(), we need to add
> >>    an additional check and avoid the wait_for_completion() if so.
> 
> Do you accept if I remove put_unbound_pool() from get_unbound_pool()
> and use several freeing code instead?

Hah?  How much extra complexity are we talking about?  It's a single
if, 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/