On Sat, May 12, 2007 at 12:41:54PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> Still, the following scenario is possible while we're freezing users space
> tasks:
>
> (1) user space task calls daemonize()
> (2) freezer checks if this is a user space task and the test returns 'true'
> (3) task calls exit_mm() and clears its TIF_FREEZE
> (4) freezer sets TIF_FREEZE for the task
> (5) task calls try_to_freeze() and freezes itself (bad!)
>
> To prevent this from happening, I think, we should acquire task_lock() around
> the entire block in which the test is made and TIF_FREEZE is set for the task,
> so something more sophisticated than
> freezer-read-pf_borrowed_mm-in-a-nonracy-way.patch is needed.
>
Hmmm, turns out Linus was right, after all! The caller needs to acquire
the task_lock().
> Well, I think we should ask Andrew to drop this patch and try to address the
> issue in the next series of patches.
I think it's a good idea.
I would want to review the patches again. The more I look at them,
the better I seem to understand the subtleties in the freezer code.
>
> Greetings,
> Rafael
Thanks and Regards
gautham.
--
Gautham R Shenoy
Linux Technology Center
IBM India.
"Freedom comes with a price tag of responsibility, which is still a bargain,
because Freedom is priceless!"
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
