netdev - Re: __refrigerator() && saved task->state

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:	Wed, 13 Nov 2013 20:14:49 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: __refrigerator() && saved task->state

On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 08:11:43PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> At first glance it would be better to simply kill this logic? If
> it was called with ->state != 0, the caller is going to schedule()
> and it probably executes the wait_event-like code, in this case
> it would me more safe to pretend the task got a spurious wakeup?

Note that in general the kernel cannot deal with spurious wakeups :/

Most proper locks and wait primitives can, but there's enough open-coded
crap out there that can not.

I tried..
--
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