linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm/mempolicy: fix sleeping function called from invalid context

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:	Tue, 24 Jun 2014 10:28:12 +0800
From:	Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
CC:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Gu Zheng <guz.fnst@...fujitsu.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-mm@...ck.org>, Cgroups <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
	<stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/mempolicy: fix sleeping function called from invalid
 context

On 2014/6/21 5:01, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Li.
> 
> Sorry about the long delay.
> 
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 10:58:45AM +0800, Li Zefan wrote:
>> Yes, this is a long-standing issue. Besides the race you described, the child
>> task's mems_allowed can be wrong if the cpuset's nodemask changes before the
>> child has been added to the cgroup's tasklist.
>>
>> I remember Tejun once said he wanted to disallow task migration between
>> cgroups during fork, and that should fix this problem.
> 
> I'm having trouble remembering but yeah enforcing stricter behavior
> across fork could be beneficial.  Hmmm... the problem with making
> forks exclusive against migrations is that we'll end up adding more
> locking to the fork path which isn't too nice.
> 
> Hmmm... other controllers (cgroup_freezer) can reliably synchronize
> the child's state to the cgroup it belongs to.  Why can't cpuset?  Is
> there something fundamentally missing in the cgroup API?
> 

cgroup_freezer uses the fork callback. We can also do this for cpuset as
suggested by David, which adds a little bit overhead to the fork path.

David, care to send out a patch?

>>> It needs to be slightly rewritten to work properly without negatively 
>>> impacting the latency of fork().  Do you have the cycles to do it?
>>>
>>
>> Sounds you have other idea?
> 
> I don't think the suggested patch breaks anything more than it was
> broken before and we should probably apply it for the time being.  Li?
> 

Yeah, we should apply Gu Zheng's patch any way.

--
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/