linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v1 1/3] workqueue: Add resource-managed version of INIT_[DELAYED

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: <CAGngYiUFQKpTUQKJtWvDftmntueb=e2AXqX=OhJLaRDKxzKxYg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 8 Feb 2019 13:15:20 -0500
From:   Sven Van Asbroeck <thesven73@...il.com>
To:     Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:     Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Sebastian Reichel <sre@...nel.org>,
        Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC v1 1/3] workqueue: Add resource-managed version of INIT_[DELAYED_]WORK()

Hi Tejun,

On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 12:07 PM Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> I don't object to the basic idea but cancel_[delayed_]work_sync()
> works iff queueing is disabled already, so there can be situations
> where this can lead to surprising / subtle failures.  Given that, it
> *might* not be a bad idea to keep this explicit unless there is a way
> to reliably block future queueing.
>

Yes, I'm "coming around" to your opinion myself.

There's also the question of which one is appropriate for clean-up:
cancel_work_sync() or flush_work().

And what about work scheduled on more than one workqueue?
Or work scheduled on multi-threaded workqueues?

The workqueue API sounds too complicated to have a devm_
helper. It would lull developers into a false sense of security.