linux-kernel - Re: [Regression] 3.19-rc3 : memcg: Hang in mount memcg

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: <20150122143454.GA4507@htj.dyndns.org>
Date:	Thu, 22 Jan 2015 09:34:54 -0500
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Cc:	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	"Suzuki K. Poulose" <Suzuki.Poulose@....com>,
	Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...allels.com>,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"mhocko@...e.cz" <mhocko@...e.cz>,
	"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [Regression] 3.19-rc3 : memcg: Hang in mount memcg

Hello,

On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 08:45:50AM -0500, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> diff --git a/kernel/cgroup.c b/kernel/cgroup.c
> index bb263d0caab3..9a09308c8066 100644
> --- a/kernel/cgroup.c
> +++ b/kernel/cgroup.c
> @@ -1819,8 +1819,11 @@ static struct dentry *cgroup_mount(struct file_system_type *fs_type,
>  			goto out_unlock;
>  		}
>  
> -		if (root->flags ^ opts.flags)
> -			pr_warn("new mount options do not match the existing superblock, will be ignored\n");
> +		if (root->flags ^ opts.flags) {
> +			pr_warn("new mount options do not match the existing superblock\n");
> +			ret = -EBUSY;
> +			goto out_unlock;
> +		}

Do we really need the above chunk?

> @@ -1909,7 +1912,7 @@ static void cgroup_kill_sb(struct super_block *sb)
>  	 *
>  	 * And don't kill the default root.
>  	 */
> -	if (css_has_online_children(&root->cgrp.self) ||
> +	if (!list_empty(&root->cgrp.self.children) ||
>  	    root == &cgrp_dfl_root)
>  		cgroup_put(&root->cgrp);

I tried to do something a bit more advanced so that eventual async
release of dying children, if they happen, can also release the
hierarchy but I don't think it really matters unless we can forcefully
drain.  So, shouldn't just the above part be enough?

Thanks.

-- 
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/