linux-kernel - Re: Considerations on sched APIs under RT patch

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:	Wed, 21 Apr 2010 22:38:36 +0200
From:	Primiano Tucci <p.tucci@...il.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	rostedt@...dmis.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	tglx <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: Considerations on sched APIs under RT patch

> No, any syscall can end up blocking/scheduling there are no exceptions.
> But blocking doesn't mean its non-deterministic, esp. when coupled with
> things like PI.
>
> But you do have to treat system resources as such, that is they can (and
> will) create cross-cpu dependencies, if you do not take that into
> account you will of course be surprised.
>
I actually don't understand why do you recall PI so frequently, it
seems to be the unique point of interest.
Actually I take care about not sharing cross-cpu resources, but I
cannot take care of what the kernel should do.
In my viewpoint is unacceptable that the scheduler apis can led into a
rescheduling.
It voids any form of process control.
If I lose the control while controlling other processes, Quis
custodiet ipsos custodes?

P.S. It actually does not happen in other RTOSes, e.g., VxWorks SMP

Primiano,

--
 Primiano Tucci
 http://www.primianotucci.com
--
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/