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  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:	Mon, 1 Sep 2014 21:09:31 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <>
Cc:	Kautuk Consul <>,
	Ingo Molnar <>,
	Andrew Morton <>,
	Michal Hocko <>,
	David Rientjes <>,
	Ionut Alexa <>,
	Guillaume Morin <>,, Kirill Tkhai <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] do_exit(): Solve possibility of BUG() due to race
 with try_to_wake_up()

On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 07:58:51PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:

> However, the very fact that another CPU can look at this task_struct
> means that we still need spin_unlock_wait(). If nothing else to ensure
> that try_to_wake_up()->spin_unlock(pi_lock) won't write into the memory
> we are are going to free.

task_struct is RCU freed, if it still has a 'reference' to the task, it
shouldn't be going 'away', right?

> So I think the comment in do exit should be updated too, and smp_mb()
> should be moved under raw_spin_unlock_wait() but ...
> But. If am right, doesn't this mean we that have even more problems with
> postmortem wakeups??? Why ttwu() can't _start_ after spin_unlock_wait ?

ttwu should bail at: if (!(p->state & state)) goto out; That should
never match with TASK_DEAD.

Either that; or I should go sleep already :-) I shifted 7 hours
yesterday, so I'm still somewhat jet-lagged.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists