linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/7] wait: Reimplement wait_event

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]

Message-ID: <20141031215342.GA27823@redhat.com>
Date:	Fri, 31 Oct 2014 22:53:42 +0100
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	mingo@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	peter@...leysoftware.com, rjw@...ysocki.net,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
	eparis@...hat.com, umgwanakikbuti@...il.com, marcel@...tmann.org,
	ebiederm@...ssion.com, davem@...emloft.net, fengguang.wu@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] wait: Reimplement wait_event_freezable()

On 10/31, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> On 10/31, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > Provide better implementations of wait_event_freezable() APIs.
> >
> > The problem is with freezer_do_not_count(), it hides the thread from
> > the freezer, even though this thread might not actually freeze/sleep
> > at all.
>
> I agree, wait_event_freezable() is awful. But could you clarify "at all" ?
>
> Sure, the task can be preempted right after it sets, it can do a lot
> of things before it calls schedule(), it can be woken after that and
> it can run again and do something else before freezer_count() calls
> try_to_freeze(), etc.
>
> Is this what you meant?
>
>
> > +#define __wait_event_freezable(wq, condition)				\
> > +	(void)___wait_event(wq, condition, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE, 0, 0,	\
> > +			    schedule(); try_to_freeze())
>
> I don't think this can work. wait_event_freezable() should be used by
> kernel threads and thus we can't rely on TIF_SIGPENDING, freeze_task()
> simply does wake_up_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE) in this case.
>
> Just for example, suppose that try_to_freeze_tasks() calls freeze_task()
> before this kthread sets current->state = TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE. In this
> case __wait_event_freezable()->schedule() will happily sleep and
> try_to_freeze_tasks() will fail.
>
> That is why I tried to suggest cmd == freezable_schedule(). Still not
> good, but at least this narrows the window and (perhaps) we can improve
> this freezable_schedule() later.
>
> But on a second thought... Probably cmd => try_to_freeze(); schedule();
> should work. Or just
>
> 	#define __wait_event_freezable(wq, condition)	\
> 		__wait_event_interruptible(wq, ({ try_to_freeze(); (condition); }))
>
> which looks simpler.

Ah, but I forgot about another problem... can't we finally kill this ugly
"long save = current->state" code in __refrigerator() ? Nobody seem to
understand why we are doing this, and this looks just wrong.

And this doesn't allow us to do try_to_freeze() + schedule().

Oleg.

--
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/