linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 6/6] sched: disabled rt-bandwidth by default

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: <200808261954.47987.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Date:	Tue, 26 Aug 2008 19:54:47 +1000
From:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Stefani Seibold <stefani@...bold.net>,
	Dario Faggioli <raistlin@...ux.it>,
	Max Krasnyansky <maxk@...lcomm.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] sched: disabled rt-bandwidth by default

On Tuesday 26 August 2008 19:30, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au> wrote:
> > So... no reply to this? I'm really wondering how it's OK to break
> > documented standards and previous Linux behaviour by default for
> > something that it is trivial to solve in userspace? [...]
>
> I disagree

Your arguments were along the line of:

* It probably doesn't break anything (except we had somebody report
  that it breaks their app)

* If it does break something then they must be doing something stupid
  (I refuted that because there are several legitimate ways to use rt
  scheduling that is broken by this)

* We have many other APIs and tools that don't conform to posix (why
  is that a reason to break this one?)

* We should break the API to cater for stupid users and distros who
  create local DoS and/or lock up their boxes (except this is trivial
  to solve by setting sysctls or having a watchdog or using sysrq)

So did I miss some really good argument, or do you really think the
above arguments are a good reason to break the API? If the latter,
then we have to just agree to disagree and I'll ask Linus to arbitrate.
OK?


--
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/