linux-kernel - Re: [patch 4/5] sched: Delay task stack freeing on RT

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 01 Oct 2021 22:54:08 +0200
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 4/5] sched: Delay task stack freeing on RT

On Fri, Oct 01 2021 at 12:02, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 11:48 AM Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 10:24 AM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
>> >
>
>> ISTM it would be conceptually for do_exit() to handle its own freeing
>> in its own preemptible context.  Obviously that can't really work,
>> since we can't free a task_struct or a task stack while we're running
>> on it.  But I wonder if we could approximate it by putting this work
>> in a workqueue so that it all runs in a normal schedulable context.
>> To make the shell script case work nicely, we want to release the task
>> stack before notifying anyone waiting for the dying task to exit, but
>> maybe that's doable.  It could involve some nasty exit_signal hackery,
>> though.
>
> I'm making this way more complicated than it needs to be.  How about
> we unaccount the task stack in do_exit and release it for real in
> finish_task_switch()?  Other than accounting, free_thread_stack
> doesn't take any locks.

Right.