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]
Message-ID: <20161109172743.GB26446@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 9 Nov 2016 18:27:44 +0100
From:   Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        Roman Pen <roman.penyaev@...fitbricks.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Chunming Zhou <David1.Zhou@....com>,
        Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kthread: don't use to_live_kthread() in
        kthread_park() and kthread_unpark()

On 11/09, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> > - watchdog_park_threads() and it does not look nice. The code is actually
> >   correct, get_online_cpus() ensures that kthread_park() can't race with
> >   itself (note that kthread_park() can't handle this race correctly), but
> >   imo it should not use kthread_park() directly.
>
> Should we provide an interface through the smpboot thread infrastructure for
> this?

IMHO yes, I'll write another email.

> I can see why that gpu driver wants to use the park mechanism and I guess
> there are other legitimate use cases as well. I prefer to implement a
> park/unpark variant which is safe to use on arbitrary kthreads

Yes, agreed. Again, I'll write another email. Perhaps we should even keep
park/unpark exported and change them to avoid the races with exit/itself,
I dunno.

My real point was, imo the KTHREAD_IS_PER_CPU/__kthread_bind(kthread->cpu)
logic in kthread_unpark() should be private to smpboot.c/cpu.c.

I'll send another patch tomorrow. kthread_create_worker_on_cpu() ab-uses
this logic too for no reason, but this is trivial.

> Reviewed-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>

Thanks!

Probably I should re-send these 2 short series to Ingo with your acks applied.

Oleg.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ