linux-kernel - Re: regression 4.4: deadlock in with cgroup percpu

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]

Message-ID: <20160120164932.GM6357@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Wed, 20 Jan 2016 17:49:32 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org >> Linux Kernel Mailing List" 
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-s390 <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
	KVM list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: regression 4.4: deadlock in with cgroup percpu_rwsem

On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 11:04:35AM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 10:30:07AM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > So the current place in free_fair_sched_group() is far too late to be
> > > calling remove_entity_load_avg(). But I'm not sure where I should put
> > > it, it needs to be in a place where we know the group is going to die
> > > but its parent is guaranteed to still exist.
> > > 
> > > Would offline be that place?
> > 
> > Hmmm... css_free would be with the following patch.
> 
> I thought a bit more about this and I think the right thing to do here
> is making both css_offline and css_free follow the ancestry order.
> I'll post a patch to do that soon.  offline is called at the head of
> destruction when the css is made invisble and draining of existing
> refs starts.  free at the end of that process.  Tree ordering
> shouldn't be where the two differ.

OK, that would be good. Meanwhile the above seems to suggest that
css_offline is already hierarchical?

I get the feeling the way sched uses the css_{offline,release,free} is
sub-optimal. cpu_cgrp_subsys::css_free := sched_destroy_group() does a
call_rcu, whereas if I read the comment with css_free_work_fn()
correctly, this is already after a grace-period, so yet another doesn't
make sense.