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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2022 14:33:51 -1000 From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> To: Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>, Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>, Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>, Lai Jiangshan <jiangshan.ljs@...group.com>, Zqiang <qiang1.zhang@...el.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] workqueue: Protects wq_unbound_cpumask with wq_pool_attach_mutex Hello, On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 10:33:48PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote: > @@ -5342,6 +5344,11 @@ static int workqueue_apply_unbound_cpumask(void) > apply_wqattrs_cleanup(ctx); > } > > + if (!ret) { > + mutex_lock(&wq_pool_attach_mutex); > + cpumask_copy(wq_unbound_cpumask, unbound_cpumask); > + mutex_unlock(&wq_pool_attach_mutex); Is this enough? Shouldn't the lock be protecting a wider scope? If there's someone reading the flag with just pool_attach_mutex, what prevents them reading it right before the new value is committed and keeps using the stale value? Thanks. -- tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists