[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090212142021.3978072c.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 14:20:21 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
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
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 14:08:09 -0800
ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman) wrote:
> 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.
Right. In this particular case, if you are fantastically unlucky and
hit the race window, all that will happen is that one particular device
will run a bit more slowly.
But at other codesites, the effects of a racing cpus_allowed rewrite
can be fatal.
> Does work_on_cpu prevent that?
Yup.
I think.
Nope.
I don't think there's actually anything which would prevent a
sufficiently stupid/malicious/unlucky administrator from moving the
work_on_cpu thread onto the wrong CPU at the wrong time. hrm.
Another reason to use smp_call_function_single().
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists