[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160629131552.GA24054@htj.duckdns.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 09:15:52 -0400
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 06/12] kthread: Add kthread_drain_worker()
Hello,
On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 10:17:48AM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > Ah, okay, I don't think we need to change this. I was suggesting to
> > simplify it by dropping the draining and just do flush from destroy.
>
> I see. But then it does not address the original concern from Peter
> Zijlstra. He did not like that the caller was responsible for blocking
> further queueing. It still will be needed. Or did I miss something,
> please?
You can only protect against so much. Let's say we make the worker
struct to be allocated by the user, what then prevents it prematurely
from user side? Use-after-free is use-after-free. If we can trivally
add some protection against it, great, but no need to contort the
design to add marginal protection.
Thanks.
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists