linux-kernel - Re: + work_on_cpu-rewrite-it-to-create-a-kernel-thread-on-demand.patch added to -mm tree

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: <m1eiy3z4ty.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org>
Date:	Thu, 12 Feb 2009 14:08:09 -0800
From:	ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	fweisbec@...il.com, mingo@...e.hu, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	oleg@...hat.com, travis@....com, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl,
	mm-commits@...r.kernel.org, rusty@...tcorp.com.au
Subject: Re: + work_on_cpu-rewrite-it-to-create-a-kernel-thread-on-demand.patch  added to -mm tree

Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> writes:

> The problem with set_cpus_allowed() is that some other
> suitably-privileged userspace process can come in from the side and
> modify your cpus_allowed at any time.

According to the comments the only reason we care is so that
we get the appropriate NUMA affinity by default.  I don't
think it would be fatal if userspace messed around and we
had a wrong value.

Does work_on_cpu prevent that?

Eric

--
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/