[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YjHz2bifJBuCs/UK@kroah.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2022 15:27:37 +0100
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>
Cc: Zhang Qiao <zhangqiao22@...wei.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
stable@...r.kernel.org, Zhao Gongyi <zhaogongyi@...wei.com>,
Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.19 01/34] cgroup/cpuset: Fix a race between
cpuset_attach() and cpu hotplug
On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 12:19:41PM +0100, Michal Koutný wrote:
> Hello.
>
> In my opinion there are two approaches:
> a) drop this backport (given other races present),
I have no problem with that, want to send a revert patch?
> b) swap the locks compatible with v4.19 as this patch proposes.
>
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 05:11:50PM +0800, Zhang Qiao <zhangqiao22@...wei.com> wrote:
> > + /*
> > + * It should hold cpus lock because a cpu offline event can
> > + * cause set_cpus_allowed_ptr() failed.
> > + */
> > + cpus_read_lock();
>
> Maybe just a nit, the old kernels before commit c5c63b9a6a2e ("cgroup:
> Replace deprecated CPU-hotplug functions.") v5.15-rc1~159^2~5
> would be more consistent with get_online_cpus() here (but they're
> equivalent functionally so the locking order is correct).
A fixed up patch would also be appreciated :)
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists