linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched/kthread: Complain loudly when others violate our flags

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:	Thu, 29 Sep 2011 20:55:01 -0700
From:	Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
To:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/kthread: Complain loudly when others violate our
 flags

On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 05:17:34PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> For convenience and optimization, we are going to use the task's flag
> PF_THREAD_BOUND as a way to know if a task is bound to a CPU or not. As
> that is what the flag means.

And I'm not sure this is a very good idea.  Until now, PF_THREAD_BOUND
meant "this task is explicitly bound to the current affinity (whatever
it is) and thus it shouldn't be manipulated by third party".  The
suggested change makes the flag much less orthogonal and useful.  How
much of convenience and optimization are we talking about?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/