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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 08 May 2007 13:02:25 +1000 From: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au> To: Satoru Takeuchi <takeuchi_satoru@...fujitsu.com> Cc: Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>, Zwane Mwaikambo <zwane@....linux.org.uk>, Nathan Lynch <nathanl@...tin.ibm.com>, Joel Schopp <jschopp@...tin.ibm.com>, Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>, Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>, Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com> Subject: Re: [BUG] cpu-hotplug: Can't offline the CPU with naughty realtime processes On Tue, 2007-05-08 at 11:41 +0900, Satoru Takeuchi wrote: > At Mon, 07 May 2007 23:42:53 +1000, > Rusty Russell wrote: > > I look forward to your patch! > > Rusty. > > Thanks, I'll do. Maybe this work will take several days including test. Excellent. > BTW, how should I manage rt process having max priority as Gautham said? > He said that it's OK unless such kernel thread exists. However, currently > MAX_USER_RT_PRIORITY is equal to MAX_RT_PRIO, so user process also be able > to cause this problem. Is Srivatsa's idea 2 acceptable? Or just apply > "Shouldn't abuse highest rt proority" rule? We used to be able to create kernel threads higher than any userspace priority. If this is no longer true, I think that's OK: equal priority still means we'll get scheduled, right? Cheers, Rusty. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists