[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 21:04:46 +0100
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...lanox.com>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
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>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 05/12] task_isolation: support
CONFIG_TASK_ISOLATION_ALL
> The same arguments would seem to apply to TASK_ISOLATION_ALL;
> note that applications don't actually go into task isolation mode
> without issuing the appropriate prctl(), so it shouldn't be too
That's a fair point. If it's entirely opt-in it's probably ok.
-Andi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists