linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] workqueue: Ensure that cpumask set for pools created after boot

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: <20170510173340.GF32165@htj.duckdns.org>
Date:   Wed, 10 May 2017 13:33:40 -0400
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:     Michael Bringmann <mwb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Nathan Fontenot <nfont@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] workqueue: Ensure that cpumask set for pools created
 after boot

Hello,

On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 11:48:17AM -0500, Michael Bringmann wrote:
> 
> On NUMA systems with dynamic processors, the content of the cpumask
> may change over time.  As new processors are added via DLPAR operations,
> workqueues are created for them.  This patch ensures that the pools
> created for new workqueues will be initialized with a cpumask before
> the first worker is created, attached, and woken up.  If the mask is
> not set up, then the kernel will crash when 'wakeup_process' is unable
> to find a valid CPU to which to assign the new worker.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Michael Bringmann <mwb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
> diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c
> index c74bf39..6091069 100644
> --- a/kernel/workqueue.c
> +++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
> @@ -3366,6 +3366,8 @@ static struct worker_pool *get_unbound_pool(const struct workqueue_attrs *attrs)
>  	copy_workqueue_attrs(pool->attrs, attrs);
>  	pool->node = target_node;
>  
> +	cpumask_copy(pool->attrs->cpumask, cpumask_of(smp_processor_id()));

What prevents a cpu getting added right here tho?

Maybe the right thing to do is protecting the whole thing with hotplug
readlock?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun