linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/8] Use process freezer for cpu-hotplug

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]

Message-Id: <1175898155.6481.85.camel@nigel.suspend2.net>
Date:	Sat, 07 Apr 2007 08:22:35 +1000
From:	Nigel Cunningham <nigel@...el.suspend2.net>
To:	Nathan Lynch <ntl@...ox.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, paulmck@...ibm.com,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	vatsa@...ibm.com, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, dipankar@...ibm.com,
	dino@...ibm.com, masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/8] Use process freezer for cpu-hotplug

Hi.

On Fri, 2007-04-06 at 12:47 -0500, Nathan Lynch wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > * Nathan Lynch <ntl@...ox.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > > -	raw_notifier_call_chain(&cpu_chain, CPU_LOCK_ACQUIRE, hcpu);
> > > > +	if (freeze_processes(FE_HOTPLUG_CPU)) {
> > > > +		thaw_processes(FE_HOTPLUG_CPU);
> > > > +		return -EBUSY;
> > > > +	}
> > > > +
> > > 
> > > If I'm understanding correctly, this will cause
> > > 
> > > # echo 0 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpuX/online
> > > 
> > > to sometimes fail, and userspace is expected to try again?  This will 
> > > break existing applications.
> > > 
> > > Perhaps drivers/base/cpu.c:store_online should retry as long as 
> > > cpu_up/down return -EBUSY.  That would avoid a userspace-visible 
> > > interface change.
> > 
> > yeah. I'd even suggest a freeze_processes_nofail() API instead, that 
> > does this internally, without burdening the callsites. (and once the 
> > freezer becomes complete then freeze_processes_nofail() == 
> > freeze_processes())
> 
> Yeah, I just realized that an implementation of my proposal would busy
> loop in the kernel forever if a silly admin tried to offline the last
> cpu (we're already using -EBUSY for that case), so
> freeze_processes_nofail is a better idea :-)

If there's only one online cpu, shouldn't it return -EINVAL?

Regards,

Nigel

-
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/