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  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]
Date:   Fri, 7 Aug 2020 21:29:43 +0200
From:   Richard Weinberger <>
To:     Zhihao Cheng <>
Cc:, LKML <>,
        Richard Weinberger <>,
        "zhangyi (F)" <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ubi: check kthread_should_stop() after the setting of
 task state

On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 4:18 AM Zhihao Cheng <> wrote:
> That's where we hold different views. I have 3 viewpoints(You can point
> out which one you disagree.):
> 1. If kthread_stop() happens at line 12, ubi thread is *marked* with
> stop flag, it will stop at kthread_should_stop() as long as it can reach
> the next iteration.
> 2. If task A is on runqueue and its state is TASK_RUNNING, task A will
> be scheduled to execute.
> 3. If kthread_stop() happens at line 12, after program counter going to
> line 14, ubi thead is on runqueue and its state is TASK_RUNNING. I have
> explained this in situation 1 in last session.
> I mean ubi thread is on runqueue with TASK_RUNNING state & stop flag
> after the process you described.
> Line 12   kthread_stop()
>                   set_bit(mark stop flag) && wake_up_process(enqueue &&
> set TASK_RUNNING )    => TASK_RUNNING & stop flag & on runqueue
> Line 13  schedule()
>                   Do nothing but pick next task to execute

You are perfectly right! I failed to concentrate on the state changes.
Now all makes sense, also your comment before the if statement.
So I don't know how to make this more clear in the code.
Maybe it's just me being dense and in need for a vacation. ;-)


Powered by blists - more mailing lists