linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] tracing/ftrace: add missing wake-up on some callsites

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:	Mon, 23 Feb 2009 18:37:14 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tracing/ftrace: add missing wake-up on some callsites


* Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:

> > Which would send a delayed work to wake up?
> 
> No, I was thinking that trace_delay_wake_up() would be called 
> by these dangerous call sites. Then a per_cpu flag could be 
> set. We could have a trace point in the scheduler code that is 
> outside holding a runqueue lock, and this trace point would 
> call a trace function that will clear the per cpu flag, and 
> then call trace_wake_up().

No, that's very roundabout and ugly. If we putting a tracepoint 
there we might as well put real scheduler code there that looks 
for such a flag. But i'm not convinced we need a flag ...

	Ingo
--
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/