linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHSET] cgroup, sched: restructure threadgroup locking and replace it with a percpu

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: <20150518200655.GB19282@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Mon, 18 May 2015 22:06:55 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	lizefan@...wei.com, cgroups@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...hat.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET] cgroup, sched: restructure threadgroup locking and
 replace it with a percpu_rwsem

On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 12:34:40PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 04:35:15PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > threadgroup locking was added because cgroup needs threadgroups to
> > stay stable across attach operations.  It was implemented as a
> > per-signal_struct generic locking mechanism so that other users which
> > require threadgroups stable across blocking operations can use it too;
> > however, it hasn't grown any other use cases and still conditionalized
> > on CONFIG_CGROUPS.
> 
> Ingo, Peter, what do you guys think? 

I had a brief look and didn't spot anhything really weird. I'll try and
give is a little more time tomorrow.

On routing I think you can take it through the cgroup tree if Ingo is ok
with that.
--
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/