linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/11] nested sleeps, fixes and debug infrastructure

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 29 Oct 2014 12:31:03 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:	Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>, mingo@...nel.org,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
	ilya.dryomov@...tank.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>, rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/11] nested sleeps, fixes and debug infrastructure

On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 10:35:03AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 01:00:56AM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:

> > But what if it calls try_to_freeze() and another thread (which should
> > be frozen too) sleeps in kthread_stop() ?
> 
> Fair point indeed. Now I had a look at __refrigerator() and is there any
> reason we should not remove that .check_kthr_stop argument and replace
> it with an unconditional (current->flags & PF_KTHREAD) ?

Hmm, doesn't kthread_freezable_should_stop() suffer the same problem? It
should not refrigerate when should_stop.


--
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/