linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH UPDATED 3/7] workqueue: Remove cpus_read_lock() from apply_wqattrs

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: <ZpVa7z7CFJHK_ybY@slm.duckdns.org>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2024 07:22:55 -1000
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com>
Cc: Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Lai Jiangshan <jiangshan.ljs@...group.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH UPDATED 3/7] workqueue: Remove cpus_read_lock() from
 apply_wqattrs_lock()

Hello, Daniel.

On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 11:13:56AM -0400, Daniel Jordan wrote:
...
> pcrypt/padata doesn't need to hold cpus_read_lock during
> alloc_workqueue.
> 
> I didn't look closely at the workqueue changes that avoid this issue,
> but I can remove the restriction in padata if it helps to reduce
> complexity in workqueue.
> 
> I saw the recent wq pull though, so if it's fine as is, that's ok too.

I think it'd be better if workqueue can put as little restrictions as
possible to its users. alloc_workqueue() is a bit of a boundary case, I
think, but if workqueue can avoid it, I think it's better that way, so no
need to change it from pcrypt/padata.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun