linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] cgroups: read-write lock CLONE

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, 3 Aug 2010 21:34:22 -0700
From:	Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>
To:	Ben Blum <bblum@...rew.cmu.edu>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
	lizf@...fujitsu.com, matthltc@...ibm.com, oleg@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] cgroups: read-write lock CLONE_THREAD forking per 
	threadgroup

On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 9:33 PM, Ben Blum <bblum@...rew.cmu.edu> wrote:
>> As far as the #ifdef mess goes, it's true that some people don't have
>> CONFIG_CGROUPS defined. I'd imagine that these are likely to be
>> embedded systems with a fairly small number of processes and threads
>> per process. Are there really any such platforms where the cost of a
>> single extra rwsem per process is going to make a difference either in
>> terms of memory or lock contention? I think you should consider making
>> these additions unconditional.
>
> That's certainly an option, but I think it would be clean enough to put
> static inline functions just under the signal_struct definition.

Either sounds fine to me. I suspect others have a stronger opinion.

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/