linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 5/9] sched: move task rq locking functions to sched.h

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:	Tue, 10 Feb 2015 08:54:36 -0600
From:	Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To:	Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>
Cc:	Seth Jennings <sjenning@...hat.com>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
	Vojtech Pavlik <vojtech@...e.cz>,
	live-patching@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 5/9] sched: move task rq locking functions to sched.h

On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 07:48:17PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> (2015/02/10 2:31), Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > Move task_rq_lock/unlock() to sched.h so they can be used elsewhere.
> > The livepatch code needs to lock each task's rq in order to safely
> > examine its stack and switch it to a new patch universe.
> 
> Hmm, why don't you just expose (extern in sched.h) those?

One reason was because task_rq_unlock was already static inline, and I
didn't want to un-inline it.  But that's probably a dumb reason, since I
inlined task_rq_lock and it wasn't inlined before.

But also, there are some other inlined locking functions in sched.h:
double_lock_balance, double_rq_lock, double_lock_irq, etc.  So it just
seemed to "fit" better there.

Either way works for me.  I'll ask some scheduler people.

-- 
Josh
--
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/