linux-kernel - Re: [RFC,PATCH 2/2] change __wake_up

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:	Tue, 30 Jun 2009 12:22:35 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:	Ratan Nalumasu <rnalumasu@...il.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Vitaly Mayatskikh <vmayatsk@...hat.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC,PATCH 2/2] change __wake_up_parent() to use filtered
	wakeup

> >        if ((wo->wo_flags & __WNOTHREAD) && wo->child_wait.private !=
> > p->parent)
> >                return 0;
> > ===
> >
> > I will run it on my test machines and see if everything looks good.
> 
> OK, thanks.
> 
> The only problem it uses ->parent, this conflicts with other out-of-tree
> ptrace changes...
> 
> Roland, do you think we should do this change now or later?

I think it makes most sense to put that in right after the initial
wait_child_callback patch (if not rolled into it).  In fact, the original
approach was to do just this "simplest" __WNOTHREAD-checking callback
first, and add the eligible_child() hacking second (not that I think that
order matters).


Thanks,
Roland
--
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/