linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] w1: w1_process() is not freezable kthread

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:	Thu, 05 Nov 2015 16:33:50 +0300
From:	Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@...emap.net>
To:	Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>
Cc:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	GregKH <greg@...ah.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] w1: w1_process() is not freezable kthread

Hi

28.10.2015, 08:26, "Jiri Kosina" <jikos@...nel.org>:
> On Tue, 27 Oct 2015, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
>
>>  > w1_process() calls try_to_freeze(), but the thread doesn't mark itself
>>  > freezable through set_freezable(), so the try_to_freeze() call is useless.
>>
>>  I believe it is better to mark it freezable, what do you think? Its task
>>  is useless if anyone else goes sleeping, it should freeze too.
>
> I fail to see why this kthread should be freezable at all. There is no way
> for w1 device to generate new I/O requests that should be written out to
> filesystem, is it?

w1 doesn't generate such requests, but it was more to make this thread
consistent with majority of other threads in the kernel.

Ok, I'm not against it, Greg please pull this patch into your tree.

Acked-by: Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@...emap.net>
--
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/