linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] task containersv11 add tasks file interface fix for cpusets

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: <6599ad830710061411l3fb9368al319a80469d54946e@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sat, 6 Oct 2007 14:11:43 -0700
From:	"Paul Menage" <menage@...gle.com>
To:	"David Rientjes" <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc:	"Paul Jackson" <pj@....com>,
	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	nickpiggin@...oo.com.au, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, serue@...ibm.com,
	clg@...ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	ebiederm@...ssion.com, svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, xemul@...nvz.org,
	containers@...ts.osdl.org, balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] task containersv11 add tasks file interface fix for cpusets

On 10/6/07, David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com> wrote:
> The getting and putting of the tasks will prevent them from exiting or
> being deallocated prematurely.  But this is also a critical section that
> will need to be protected by some mutex so it doesn't race with other
> set_cpus_allowed().

Is that necessary? If some other process calls set_cpus_allowed()
concurrently with a cpuset cpus update, it's not clear that there's
any defined serialization semantics that have to be achieved, as long
as the end result is that the task's cpus_allowed are within the
cpuset's cpus_allowed.

Paul
-
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/