linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/6] cpumask: avoid playing with cpus

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]

Date:	Thu, 11 Jun 2009 19:25:17 -0400
From:	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
To:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Cc:	cpufreq@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, mark.langsdorf@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] cpumask: avoid playing with cpus_allowed in
	powernow-k8.c

On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 10:59:58PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
 > From: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
 > 
 > It's generally a very bad idea to mug some process's cpumask: it could
 > legitimately and reasonably be changed by root, which could break us
 > (if done before our code) or them (if we restore the wrong value).
 > 
 > I did not replace powernowk8_target; it needs fixing, but it grabs a
 > mutex (so no smp_call_function_single here) but Mark points out it can
 > be called multiple times per second, so work_on_cpu is too heavy.

This one clashes with some diffs I merged earlier in cpufreq.git.
Can you rebase on top of that please?
(The other two were fine).

Otherwise, they all look ok to me. As long as they survive testing I
see no reason not to push them for .31.

Thanks,

	Dave

--
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/