linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] work_on_cpu: Use our own workqueue.

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <200902051015.47360.rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Date:	Thu, 5 Feb 2009 10:15:46 +1030
From:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, travis@....com, mingo@...hat.com,
	davej@...hat.com, cpufreq@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] work_on_cpu: Use our own workqueue.

On Thursday 05 February 2009 08:18:23 Andrew Morton wrote:
> I expect that the same argument applies to most of the set_cpus_allowed()
> callsites - they're run by root-only code.  Sure, root can (with
> careful timing) move root's own thread onto the wrong CPU in the middle
> of microcode loading.  In which case root gets to own both pieces.

Sorry, I don't accept this at all.  It's completely reasonable for me to write a tool which clears all tasks off a cpu.  We wrote an API to do it, now we're going to say don't use it?

Yes, it's a pain to fix.  Yes, we should never have been doing it this way in the first place.  But let's not blame the users.

Rusty.
--
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/