linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] cgroups: read-write lock CLONE

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:	Fri, 6 Aug 2010 16:08:27 +0900
From:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Ben Blum <bblum@...rew.cmu.edu>
Cc:	Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
	lizf@...fujitsu.com, matthltc@...ibm.com, oleg@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] cgroups: read-write lock CLONE_THREAD forking
 per threadgroup

On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 02:02:24 -0400
Ben Blum <bblum@...rew.cmu.edu> wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 03, 2010 at 09:34:22PM -0700, Paul Menage wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 9:33 PM, Ben Blum <bblum@...rew.cmu.edu> wrote:
> > >> As far as the #ifdef mess goes, it's true that some people don't have
> > >> CONFIG_CGROUPS defined. I'd imagine that these are likely to be
> > >> embedded systems with a fairly small number of processes and threads
> > >> per process. Are there really any such platforms where the cost of a
> > >> single extra rwsem per process is going to make a difference either in
> > >> terms of memory or lock contention? I think you should consider making
> > >> these additions unconditional.
> > >
> > > That's certainly an option, but I think it would be clean enough to put
> > > static inline functions just under the signal_struct definition.
> > 
> > Either sounds fine to me. I suspect others have a stronger opinion.
> > 
> > Paul
> > 
> 
> Any other votes? One set of static inline functions (I'd call them
> threadgroup_fork_{read,write}_{un,}lock) or just remove the ifdefs
> entirely? I'm inclined to go with the former.
> 

I vote for the former. #ifdef can be easily removed if someone finds it useful
for other purpose...and static inline function is usual way.

Thanks,
-Kame

--
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/