linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] tasks: Extract rcu

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]

Date:   Tue, 7 Mar 2023 11:19:13 -0600
From:   David Vernet <void@...ifault.com>
To:     Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:     mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
        vincent.guittot@...aro.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
        bsegall@...gle.com, mgorman@...e.de, bristot@...hat.com,
        vschneid@...hat.com, kernel-team@...a.com,
        torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tasks: Extract rcu_users out of union

On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 10:11:42AM -0600, David Vernet wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 11:25:21AM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 02/16, David Vernet wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 09:04:59AM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >    a task that's successfully looked
> > > > >    up in e.g. the pid_list with find_task_by_pid_ns(), can always have a
> > > > >    'usage' reference acquired on them, as it's guaranteed to be >
> > > > >    0 until after the next gp.
> > > >
> > > > Yes. So it seems you need another key-to-task_struct map with rcu-safe
> > > > lookup/get and thus the add() method needs inc_not_zero(task->rcu_users) ?
> > >
> > > Yes, exactly.
> > 
> > OK, in this case I agree, inc_not_zero(rcu_users) makes sense and thus we need
> > this patch.
> 
> Thanks again for taking a look.
> 
> > 
> > Just I was confused by the previous part of the changelog due to my bad English.
> 
> No worries at all -- the commit summary definitely could have been more
> clear.
> 
> Does anyone else have any thoughts? Is there anything else we need to do
> for this patch to land?

Sending a friendly ping on this now that the merge window has closed and
things have settled down a bit.

Thanks,
David