| 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: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 09:36:28 +0100 From: "Dmitry Adamushko" <dmitry.adamushko@...il.com> To: "Max Krasnyanskiy" <maxk@...lcomm.com> Cc: "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>, "Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "Paul Jackson" <pj@....com>, "Peter Zijlstra" <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> Subject: Re: [PATCH sched-devel 0/7] CPU isolation extensions Hi Max, > [ ... ] > Last patch to the stop machine is potentially unsafe and is marked as experimental. Unfortunately > it's currently the only option that allows dynamic module insertion/removal for above scenarios. I'm puzzled by the following part (can be a misunderstanding from my side) +config CPUISOL_STOPMACHINE + bool "Do not halt isolated CPUs with Stop Machine (EXPERIMENTAL)" + depends on CPUISOL && STOP_MACHINE && EXPERIMENTAL + help + If this option is enabled kernel will not halt isolated CPUs + when Stop Machine is triggered. Stop Machine is currently only + used by the module insertion and removal. this "only" part. What about e.g. a 'cpu hotplug' case (_cpu_down())? (or we should abstract it a bit to the point that e.g. a cpu can be considered as 'a module'? :-) -- Best regards, Dmitry Adamushko -- 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