linux-kernel - Re: sched_setscheduler() vs idle

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 May 2015 14:06:51 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	ktkhai@...allels.com
Subject: Re: sched_setscheduler() vs idle_balance() race

On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 02:04:21PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 13:51 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> > Which is exactly the hole you mean, right?
> 
> Yeah, but that hole is way older than dl.  Box falling into it is
> running SLE11, which is.. well, still somewhat resembles 3.0.

Oh sure, that patch just recognised there was a hole there and put a
comment in. We further failed to spot the fail you just did.

Right mess though, I think I already found some of those 'obvious'
reasons mentioned in the previous email.
--
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/