linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC] ioctl based CAT interface

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: <20151116090333.GL17308@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Mon, 16 Nov 2015 10:03:33 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@...hat.com>
Cc:	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Vikas Shivappa <vikas.shivappa@...el.com>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Yu Fenghua <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] ioctl based CAT interface

On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 02:04:38PM -0500, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> I guess that what Peter is saying is that we don't want tasks
> attached to a reservation landing on a CPU where the reservation
> might be different or not existent at all.

Correct.

> This way, the ATTACH_RESERVATION command would fail if any
> of the CPUs in the cpumask are not part of the reservation.
> And then our code would have to be notified any time the process'
> affinity mask is changed (we either fail the affinity change
> or detach the process automatically from the reservation). Does
> this sound like a good solution?

No. We're not going to have random drivers muck about with affinity
masks, and most certainly not some manky ioctl.
--
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/