[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181206085748.GA16059@amd>
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2018 09:57:49 +0100
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To: Chanho Min <chanho.min@....com>
Cc: 'Oleg Nesterov' <oleg@...hat.com>,
'Ingo Molnar' <mingo@...nel.org>,
'Linus Torvalds' <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
'Linux List Kernel Mailing' <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"'Rafael J. Wysocki'" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
'Thomas Gleixner' <tglx@...utronix.de>,
'Peter Zijlstra' <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
'Michal Hocko' <mhocko@...e.com>, seungho1.park@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "exec: make de_thread() freezable (was: Re: Linux
4.20-rc4)
Hi!
> > On 12/04, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >
> > > * Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > we really need to narrow the (huge) scope of ->cred_guard_mutex in exec
> > paths.
> > > >
> > > > my attempt to fix this was nacked, and nobody suggested a better solution
> > so far.
> > >
> > > Any link to your patch and the NAK?
> >
> > See https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20170213141452.GA30203@redhat.com/
> >
> > No questions, the patch wasn't pretty. And imo we need to rework the security
> > hooks in the long term.
> >
> > Oleg.
>
> I am sorry for the reverting this patch. It's also my fault that
> I didn't check lockdep. But, We decided to keep this patch in our product.
> Freeze fail is a real problem we've had for the last two years,
> whereas lockdep's notice is not a real problem.
> We hope this issue will be resolved soon.
I guess it makes sense for your usage.
How often do you see the failures without the patch?
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (182 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists