linux-kernel - perf: question about event scheduler

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Tue, 23 Jul 2013 10:13:33 +0200
From:	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
To:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>, "mingo@...e.hu" <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: perf: question about event scheduler

Hi,

I am looking at ctx_pinned_sched_in() and
ctx_flexible_sched_in() and I am trying to
understand the difference of treatment in
case of errors for the two classes of events
(pinned vs. flexible).

For pinned events, when a group fails to
schedule in, the code goes on to the next
group and therefore walks the entire list
for each scheduler invocation.

For flexible events, when a group fails,
the loop aborts and no subsequent group
is tried.

I am trying to understand the motivation for
this difference here.

If I recall, the abort is here to limit malicious
DoS where a malicious user would provide
an arbitrary long list of events, hogging the kernel.
But in the case of pinned events, this is ignored
because to create such events one needs to be
root in the first place.

Am I getting this right?
--
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/