linux-kernel - Re: [Stable-review] [064/123] sched: Protect task->cpus_allowed access in sched

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 18 Sep 2010 21:32:28 +0100
From:	Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
To:	Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...nel.org,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, stable-review@...nel.org,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk
Subject: Re: [Stable-review] [064/123] sched: Protect task->cpus_allowed
 access in sched_getaffinity()

I'm somewhat disturbed by the number of non-trivial scheduler changes
here.  How well have these been tested as applied to the 2.6.32.y
branch?

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (829 bytes)