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

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

Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.02.1110031539380.1489@ionos>
Date:	Mon, 3 Oct 2011 15:43:46 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
cc:	Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/kthread: Complain loudly when others violate our
 flags

On Mon, 3 Oct 2011, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> On Mon, 2011-10-03 at 12:20 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > I didn't write this change for fun, I actually need to get
> > PF_THREAD_BOUND back to sanity, this change alone isn't enough, but it
> > gets rid of the worst abuse. This isn't frivolous perturbation. 
> 
> Not to mention it gets rid of ~250 lines, and it adds stricter checking
> and thereby removes the need to manually flush queues if you really
> meant things to be per-cpu.
> 
> I mean, really, what's the downside?

Nothing. If code can be simplified and at the same time gets stricter
semantics and becomes less fragile then there is no valid reason to
refuse such a cleanup.

Thanks,

	tglx
--
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/