linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 7/7] RCU, workqueue: Implement rcu

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

Date:   Fri, 9 Mar 2018 07:37:11 -0800
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...ck.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...il.com>,
        security@...nel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-team <kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/7] RCU, workqueue: Implement rcu_work

Hello, Linus.

On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 10:30:29AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>  - can we split this patch up, so that if somebody bisects a problem
> to it, we'll see if it's cgroup or aio that triggers it?

Will do.

> So I'd like to either just make the thing always just use
> WORK_CPU_UNBOUND, or hear some kind of (handwaving ok) explanation for
> why something else would ever make sense. If the action is
> fundamentally delayed by RCU, why would it make a difference which CPU
> it runs on?

It was mostly for consistency with other interfaces.  Let's drop
queue_work_on() for now.  If ever necessary, we can easily add it back
later.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun