netdev - Re: 3.11-rc regression bisected: s2disk does not work (was Re: [PATCH v3 13/16] futex: use freezable blocking call)

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: <CAMbhsRSsq0pgS6KvCjiFGneDEJd6zSXsYB_2MCV=sh+6F2muog@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 22 Jul 2013 23:28:34 -0700
From:	Colin Cross <ccross@...roid.com>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Michael Leun <lkml20130126@...ton.leun.net>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@...omium.org>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	linux-nfs <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: 3.11-rc regression bisected: s2disk does not work (was Re: [PATCH
 v3 13/16] futex: use freezable blocking call)

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 6:41 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:
> On Monday, July 22, 2013 05:42:49 PM Colin Cross wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 5:32 PM, Linus Torvalds
>> <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Colin Cross <ccross@...roid.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I think the right solution is to add a flag to the freezing task that
>> >> marks it unfreezable.  I  think PF_NOFREEZE would work, although it is
>> >> normally used on kernel threads, can you see if the attached patch
>> >> helps?
>> >
>> > Hmm. That does seem to be the right thing to do, but I wonder about
>> > the *other* callers of freeze_processes() IOW, kexec and friends.
>> >
>> > So maybe we should do this in {freeze|thaw}_processes() itself, and
>> > just make the rule be that the caller of freeze_processes() itself is
>> > obviously not frozen, and has to be the same one that then thaws
>> > things?
>> >
>> > Colin? Rafael? Comments?
>> >
>> >                 Linus
>>
>> I was worried about clearing the flag in thaw_processes().  If a
>> kernel thread with PF_NOFREEZE set ever called thaw_processes(), which
>> autosleep might do, it would clear the flag.  Or if a different thread
>> called freeze_processes() and thaw_processes().
>
> Is that legitimate?

Nothing precludes it today, but I don't see any need for it.  I'll add
a comment when I add the flag.

>> All the other callers besides the SNAPSHOT_FREEZE ioctl stay in the kernel
>> between freeze_processes() and thaw_processes(), which makes the fanout of
>> places that could call try_to_freeze() much more controllable.
>>
>> Using a new flag that operates like PF_NOFREEZE but doesn't conflict
>> with it, or a nofreeze_depth counter, would also work.
>
> Well, that would be robust enough.  At least if the purpose of that new flag
> is clearly specified, people hopefully won't be tempted to optimize it away in
> the future.
>
> Thanks,
> Rafael

OK, I'll add a new flag.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html