linux-kernel - Re: [RFD] Freezing of kernel threads

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 12 May 2007 13:11:34 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>
cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFD] Freezing of kernel threads

On Sat, 12 May 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
>  - make the rule be that you cannot sleep in the above macro, and make the 
>    rule be that CPU hotplug uses the same mechanisms that module unload 
>    already does!

Side note: we obviously already do the stop_machine_run thing for CPU 
down, so doing it for CPU bringup too would seem to just be a good thing. 
And it means that the locking for CPU's disappearing is the same as the 
locking rules for CPU's appearing: you just want to make sure to disable 
preemption (which you already have to do, to make the "CPU went away" case 
work out).

So how about just making sure "__cpu_up()" gets called with the same 
stop_machine_run() logic? Maybe it's not *quite* a one-liner change, but 
it should come fairly close...

		Linus
-
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/