linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] workqueue: Introduce PF_WQ_RESCUE

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: <ZXdXdBzvbkI4Y4fL@slm.duckdns.org>
Date:   Mon, 11 Dec 2023 08:39:48 -1000
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:     Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>
Cc:     Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@...mlin.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        jiangshanlai@...il.com, peterz@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] workqueue: Introduce PF_WQ_RESCUE_WORKER

Hello,

On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 03:51:57PM +0100, Juri Lelli wrote:
> Guess this is a requirement because, if workqueue processing is stuck
> for some reason, getting rescuers to run on the same set of cpus
> workqueues have been restricted to already doesn't really have good
> chances of making any progress?

The only problem rescuers try to solve is deadlocks caused by lack of
memory, so on the cpu side, it just follows whatever worker pool it's trying
to help.

> Wonder if we still might need some sort of fail hard/warn mode in case
> strict isolation is in place? Or maybe we have that already?

For both percpu and unbound workqueues, the rescuers just follow whatever
pool it's trying to help at the moment, so it shouldn't cause any surprises
in terms of isolation. It just temporarily joins the already active but
stuck pool.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun