linux-kernel - Re: [patch] don't preempt not TASK

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: <E1LkcrP-0003Np-T2@pomaz-ex.szeredi.hu>
Date:	Fri, 20 Mar 2009 12:25:59 +0100
From:	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To:	mingo@...e.hu
CC:	miklos@...redi.hu, peterz@...radead.org, roland@...hat.com,
	efault@....de, rjw@...k.pl, jdike@...toit.com,
	user-mode-linux-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [patch] don't preempt not TASK_RUNNING tasks

On Fri, 20 Mar 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > The first line of attack for this problem is making 
> > > wait_task_inactive() sucks less, which shouldn't be too hard, 
> > > that unconditional 1 jiffy sleep is simply retarded.
> > 
> > I completely agree.  However, I'd like to have a non-invasive 
> > solution that can go into current and stable kernels so UML users 
> > don't need to suffer any more.
> 
> Agreed. task_unlock_no_resched() should do that i think.

I don't see how that would help.

ptrace_stop() specifically would need read_unlock_no_resched().  But
I'm reluctant to add more spinlock functions with all their
variants...

Thanks,
Miklos
--
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/