| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <s2tc5b2c05b1004211338y814bc3b2o547a6eecdf64ca7f@mail.gmail.com> 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists