linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Pre-emption control for userspace

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 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, 05 Mar 2014 17:02:50 -0700
From:	Khalid Aziz <khalid.aziz@...cle.com>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, David Lang <david@...g.hm>
CC:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, peterz@...radead.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Pre-emption control for userspace

On 03/05/2014 04:56 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 03/05/2014 03:48 PM, Khalid Aziz wrote:
>>
>> Cost is writing to a memory location since thread is using mmap, not
>> insignificant but hardly expensive. Thread does not need to know how
>> much time it has left in current timeslice. It always sets the flag to
>> request pre-emption immunity before entering the critical section and
>> clears the flag when it exits its critical section. If the thread comes
>> up for pre-emption while the flag is set, it gets immunity. If it does
>> not, flag will be cleared at the end of critical section any way.
>>
>
> A little more than that.  The scheduler needs to set *another* flag
> telling the process to yield upon leaving the critical section; if the
> process doesn't, the scheduler needs to keep enough accounting to know
> to penalize the process, or this method will not be usable for
> unprivileged processes.

Yes, you had made that suggestion earlier and I like it. It will be in 
v2 patch. I am thinking of making the penalty be denial of next 
preemption immunity request if a process fails to yield when it should 
have. Sounds good?

Thanks,
Khalid
--
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/