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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-Id: <1284889213.23005.80.camel@marge.simson.net>
Date:	Sun, 19 Sep 2010 11:40:13 +0200
From:	Mike Galbraith <mgalbraith@...e.de>
To:	Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
Cc:	Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	stable@...nel.org, 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()

On Sun, 2010-09-19 at 07:10 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-09-18 at 21:32 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > 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?
> 
> All of them of course.

(parse error)

The patch set saw a lot of stress and benchmark hours on boxen large and
small, to be as sure as anyone can be that it was not going to upset the
enterprise apple cart, nor harm the desktop.

I call it heavily tested, but can't post a detailed log of everything
done on every box for others to decide for themselves, since I didn't
compile same.

	-Mike

--
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/