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: <1fadd74c-25d0-b9ab-8a06-27a9faa6579b@linaro.org>
Date:   Fri, 20 May 2022 09:56:50 -0700
From:   Tadeusz Struk <tadeusz.struk@...aro.org>
To:     Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>
Cc:     Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        syzbot+e42ae441c3b10acf9e9d@...kaller.appspotmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cgroup: don't queue css_release_work if one already
 pending

On 5/20/22 09:42, Michal Koutný wrote:
> On Fri, May 20, 2022 at 09:38:12AM -0700, Tadeusz Struk<tadeusz.struk@...aro.org>  wrote:
>> as this is a result of enqueuing the same css->destroy_work onto the same WQ,
>> one on the rcu path and one on the css_release path.
>> I will prototype it today and test with syzbot.
> In my understanding, you'd need two independent work_structs in a css,
> not two separate workqueues to put the single entry on.

I think either way would work, but two workqueues would be less churn.
I can try both.

-- 
Thanks,
Tadeusz

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ