linux-kernel - Re: [RFC/PATCH 0/4] CPUSET driven CPU isolation

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: <20080228213402.7260906f.pj@sgi.com>
Date:	Thu, 28 Feb 2008 21:34:02 -0600
From:	Paul Jackson <pj@....com>
To:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc:	mingo@...e.hu, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, tglx@...utronix.de,
	oleg@...sign.ru, rostedt@...dmis.org, maxk@...lcomm.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH 0/4] CPUSET driven CPU isolation

David, responding to pj, responding to ...:
>
> > > Move the watchdog/0 thread to a cpuset that doesn't have access to cpu 0.  
> > 
> > I still don't understand ... you must have some context in mind that
> > I've spaced out ... I can't even tell if that is a statement or a
> > question.
> > 
> 
> You said that you weren't aware of any problems that could arise that are 
> fixed with this added check in set_cpus_allowed(),

Ok, now I understand your question - thanks.

I think your question arises from misreading what I wrote.

I did not say that I wasn't "aware of any problems that could arise"

I did say, as you quoted, from Thu, 28 Feb 2008 11:37:28 -0600:
>
> I don't have strong opinions either way on this patch; it adds an error
> check that makes sense.  I haven't seen much problem not having this check,
> nor do I know of any code that depends on doing what this check prohibits.

 - This does not say no (none whatsoever) problem could (ever in the future) arise.

 - This does say not much (just a little) problem had arisen (so far in the past).

Apparently, you thought I was trying to reject the patch on the grounds
that no such problem could ever occur, and you were showing how such a
problem could occur.  I wasn't trying to reject the patch, and I agree
that the check made sense, and I agree that such a problem could occur,
as your example shows.

-- 
                  I won't rest till it's the best ...
                  Programmer, Linux Scalability
                  Paul Jackson <pj@....com> 1.940.382.4214
--
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/