Re: [PATCH 1/3] comm: Introduce comm_lock seqlock to protecttask->comm access

[John Stultz]

On Sat, 2011-05-14 at 20:12 +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> >> Can you please explain why we should use seqlock? That said,
> >> we didn't use seqlock for /proc items. because, plenty seqlock
> >> write may makes readers busy wait. Then, if we don't have another
> >> protection, we give the local DoS attack way to attackers.
> >
> > So you're saying that heavy write contention can cause reader
> > starvation?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> >> task->comm is used for very fundamentally. then, I doubt we can
> >> assume write is enough rare. Why can't we use normal spinlock?
> >
> > I think writes are likely to be fairly rare. Tasks can only name
> > themselves or sibling threads, so I'm not sure I see the risk here.
> 
> reader starvation may cause another task's starvation if reader have
> an another lock.

So the risk is a thread rewriting its own comm over and over could
starve some other critical task trying to read the comm.

Ok. It makes it a little more costly, but fair enough.

thanks
-john




--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/