linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH/RFC] Have sane default values for cpusets

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, 12 May 2010 12:36:57 -0700
From:	Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>
To:	Dhaval Giani <dhaval.giani@...il.com>
Cc:	balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, peterz@...radead.org,
	lennart@...ttering.net, jsafrane@...hat.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] Have sane default values for cpusets

On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 12:29 PM, Dhaval Giani <dhaval.giani@...il.com> wrote:
>> I think the idea is reasonable - the only way that I could see it
>> breaking someone would be code that currently does something like:
>>
>> mkdir A
>> mkdir B
>> echo 1 > A/mem_exclusive
>> echo 1 > B/mem_exclusive
>> echo $mems_for_a > A/mems
>> echo $mems_for_b > B/mems
>>
>> The attempts to set the mem_exclusive flags would fail, since A and B
>> would both have all of the parent's mems.
>>
>
> But would this not fail otherwise?
>

Assuming that mems_for_a and mems_for_b were disjoint, it would be
fine currently.

Paul
--
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/