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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox