linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH]: exec: avoid propagating PF_NO

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, 28 Nov 2013 09:53:25 -0500
From:	Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, zhang.yi20@....com.cn,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH]: exec: avoid propagating PF_NO_SETAFFINITY into
 userspace child

On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 03:43:59PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 03:31:45PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Sure, we absolutely must set it for per-cpu workqueues (and their
> > workers) otherwise we cannot guarantee correctness. Same for per-node if
> > we have that.
> 
> On that, the per-node thing is debatable. There's no correctness issues
> with per-node stuff as we have with per-cpu storage.
> 
> And if there's no correctness implications we should not force things.

That's true iff you confine the "correctness" to not crashing.  That's
an extremely narrow definition tho and most will argue against that.

-- 
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/