linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 07/11] arch/x86: enable task isolation functionality

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: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1510011207400.4500@nanos>
Date:	Thu, 1 Oct 2015 12:10:03 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
cc:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...hip.com>,
	Gilad Ben Yossef <giladb@...hip.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 07/11] arch/x86: enable task isolation functionality

On Thu, 1 Oct 2015, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Oct 2015, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> 
> > And I really want to see a proper engineering for that isolation
> > stuff, which can be done with an out of tree patch set in the first
> > place. But sure, it's more convenient to push crap into mainline and
> > let everyone else deal with the fallouts.
> 
> Yes lets keep the half baked stuff out please. Firing a timer that signals
> the app via a signal causes an event that is not unlike the OS noise that
> we are trying to avoid. Its an asynchrononous event that may interrupt at
> random locations in the code. In that case I would say its perfectly fine
> to use the tick and other timer processing on the processor that requested
> it. If you really want low latency and be OS intervention free then please
> do not set up timers. In fact any signal should bring on full OS services
> on a processor.
 
Right. That's a recommendation to the application developer, which he
can follow or not. And he has to deal with the consequences if not.

Thanks,

	tglx
--
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/