linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] cpuset relative memory policies

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:	Thu, 1 Nov 2007 10:07:37 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To:	Paul Jackson <pj@....com>
cc:	rientjes@...gle.com, Lee.Schermerhorn@...com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ak@...e.de
Subject: Re: [RFC] cpuset relative memory policies - second choice

On Thu, 1 Nov 2007, Paul Jackson wrote:

> > > Forcing coders to specify the same detail in multiple places, when
> > > there is no way to validate their consistency, doesn't force them
> > > to think or do it right.  It increases the error rate due to
> > 
> > There are always wrappers for system calls. The flags will be set in 
> > these.
> 
> We were discussing libnuma here, not glibc.  The system call wrappers
> are in glibc.  System call wrappers should not be setting optional
> flags.  They should just make the system call -- do whatever magic it
> takes to get the provided arguments into the right registers or other
> conventionally determined places, and invoke the necessary machine
> instruction to trap into the kernel.

The library interface can set flags to modify behavior.
-
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/