linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kmod: Run usermodehelpers only on cpus allowed for kthreadd

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:	Thu, 17 Oct 2013 10:50:26 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	Mike Galbraith <bitbucket@...ine.de>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Gilad Ben-Yossef <gilad@...yossef.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Mike Frysinger <vapier@...too.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kmod: Run usermodehelpers only on cpus allowed for
 kthreadd

On Thu, 17 Oct 2013 18:07:28 +0200 Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com> wrote:

> Couldn't we instead make kthread children (those created with kthread_create()) to inherit
> kthread initial affinity? Currently kthread's children have cpu_all_mask. We could change
> that behaviour. This way the initial kthread affinity could be inherited all along.

I'm wondering if it's clean/logical to tie usermodehelper affinity to
kthreadd affinity at all.  It's certainly convenient, but they're
distinct concepts.  What is the reason to not have a separate control
for usermodehelper cpus-allowed?
--
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/