linux-kernel - Re: [RFD 4/9] Make total

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, 28 Sep 2011 12:35:48 -0300
From:	Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
CC:	Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <paul@...lmenage.org>,
	<lizf@...fujitsu.com>, <daniel.lezcano@...e.fr>,
	<jbottomley@...allels.com>,
	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFD 4/9] Make total_forks per-cgroup

On 09/28/2011 12:33 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-09-28 at 12:29 -0300, Glauber Costa wrote:
>> On 09/28/2011 09:53 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2011-09-28 at 14:42 +0200, Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
>>>
>>>>> That is, am I missing some added value of all this cputime*() foo?
>>>>
>>>> C can do the math as long as the encoding of the cputime is simple enough.
>>>> Can we demand that a cputime value needs to be an integral type ?
>>>
>>> I'd like to think we can ;-)
>>>
>>>> What I did when I wrote all that stuff is to define cputime_t as a struct
>>>> that contains a single u64. That way I found all the places in the kernel
>>>> that used a cputime and could convert the code accordingly.
>>>
>>> Indeed, that makes it a non-simple type and breaks all the C arith bits.
>>>
>>>> My fear is that if the cputime_xxx operations are removed, code will
>>>> sneak in again that just uses an unsigned long instead of a cputime_t.
>>>> That would break any arch that requires something bigger than a u32 for
>>>> its cputime.
>>>
>>> Which is only a problem for 32bit archs, of which s390 is the only one
>>> that matters, right? Hurm,. could we do something with sparse? Lots of
>>> people run sparse.
>>>
>> Well, I think x86-32 is unlikely to ever really go away.
>
> Sadly I'd agree with you, but that's not really the point, the only 32
> bit arch that has !32 bit cputime_t is s390.

Ah, I see.

Right, then.

So let me get this straight: The proposal here is really to get rid of 
all cputime_t , not only cputime64_t ?

>
> But yeah, death to ia32 (and everything else 32bit fwiw)!
Well, we need to kill the 16bit stuff still lying around first =)

--
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/