From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 5/5] kmod: Handle UMH_WAIT_PROC from system unbound workqueue
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 00:51:17 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150709225117.GB17528@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1436465237-22031-6-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com>
On 07/09, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>
> The UMH_WAIT_PROC handler runs in its own thread for obsolete reasons.
> We couldn't launch and then wait for the exec kernel thread completion
> without blocking other usermodehelper queued jobs since khelper was
> implemented as a singlthread ordered workqueue.
>
> But now we replaced khelper with generic system unbound workqueues which
> can handle concurrent blocking jobs.
>
> So lets run it from the workqueue.
Probably this is fine, but I am a bit worried...
WQ_MAX_ACTIVE == 512, this should be enough "in practice". But nothing
protects us from creative driver(s) which spawns 512 long-living user
space tasks...
Note also that userpace can ptrace these task and "block" sys_wait()
forever.
I am worried ;)
> CHECK: I'm just worried about the signal handler that gets tweaked
> and also the call to sys_wait() that might fiddle with internals. The
> system workqueue must continue to work without surprise for other
> works.
Yes. This means that this patch is wrong without disallow_signal()
at the end.
Oleg.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-07-09 22:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-07-09 18:07 [PATCH 0/5] kmod: Simplifications and cleanups v2 Frederic Weisbecker
2015-07-09 18:07 ` [PATCH 1/5] kmod: Bunch of internal functions renames Frederic Weisbecker
2015-07-09 18:07 ` [PATCH 2/5] kmod: Use system_unbound_wq instead of khelper Frederic Weisbecker
2015-07-09 22:44 ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-07-10 13:47 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2015-07-10 14:20 ` Christoph Lameter
2015-07-10 17:12 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2015-07-10 17:52 ` Christoph Lameter
2015-07-10 18:10 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2015-07-10 19:05 ` Christoph Lameter
2015-07-14 14:04 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2015-07-09 18:07 ` [PATCH 3/5] kmod: Add up-to-date explanations on the purpose of each asynchronous levels Frederic Weisbecker
2015-07-09 18:07 ` [PATCH 4/5] kmod: Remove unecessary explicit wide CPU affinity setting Frederic Weisbecker
2015-07-09 18:07 ` [RFC PATCH 5/5] kmod: Handle UMH_WAIT_PROC from system unbound workqueue Frederic Weisbecker
2015-07-09 22:51 ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2015-07-10 13:57 ` Frederic Weisbecker
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20150709225117.GB17528@redhat.com \
--to=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cl@linux.com \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.