linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] cpusets: update tasks' cpus_allowed and mems

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:	Wed, 4 Jun 2008 12:33:39 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To:	Paul Jackson <pj@....com>
cc:	menage@...gle.com, miaox@...fujitsu.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] cpusets: update tasks' cpus_allowed and mems_allowed
 after CPU/NODE offline/online

On Wed, 4 Jun 2008, Paul Jackson wrote:

> > That would identify both kthreads that have been created with a subsequent 
> > call to set_cpus_allowed() or kthread_bind().
> 
> Or do I misunderstand?
> 
> If I am reading you correctly, then would it work to have a check in the
> cpuset code (rather than in the lower set_cpus_allowed() routine),
> where that check refused to move tasks out of the root cpuset if they
> were (1) kernel threads (mm NULL) and (2) had cpus_allowed that were a
> strict subset of the root cpusets 'cpus' (the online cpus).
> 

No, because sched_setaffinity() can still move the threads.
--
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/