linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3.18 11/61] workqueue: fix subtle pool management issue which can stall whole worker

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:	Wed, 28 Jan 2015 09:54:48 -0800
From:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	stable@...r.kernel.org, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...deen.net>,
	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3.18 11/61] workqueue: fix subtle pool management issue
 which can stall whole worker_pool

On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 10:07:01AM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 11:15:32AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> > Was the bug introduced at the first time when maybe_create_worker() was
> > introduced?  Although manage_workers()/maybe_create_worker() was changed a bit,
> > the stable-tree team can simply make manage_workers() return true to fix
> > this bug for the very old kernel versions.
> 
> Yes, this bug has been there from the beginning of cmwq.  I'm
> attaching a patch which is for before the removal of
> maybe_destory_worker().

This patch will apply to 3.10, but not 3.14, and I'm confused.  Should I
backport the original version to 3.14?  3.10?  Use this different
version instead?

confused,

greg k-h
--
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/