linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] sched/rtmutex/deadline: Fix a PI crash for deadline tasks

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20160408083158.GV3430@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Fri, 8 Apr 2016 10:31:58 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	xlpang@...hat.com
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] sched/rtmutex/deadline: Fix a PI crash for
 deadline tasks

On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 04:04:07PM +0800, Xunlei Pang wrote:
> On 2016/04/07 at 02:14, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> > I would suggest doing the rt_mutex_postunlock() thing as a separate
> > patch, it has some merit outside of these changes and reduces the total
> > amount of complexity in this patch.
> 
> I think the code change is necessary , as it avoids the invalid task_struct
> access issue introduced by PATCH1.
> 
> Do you mean just making the code refactor using rt_mutex_postunlock()
> as a separate patch? or do I miss something?

This, a separate patch that comes before this one.

But no need to send that until you've received word from Thomas.