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  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:	Sat, 5 Mar 2016 13:31:58 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <>
To:	Chris Metcalf <>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <>,
	Gilad Ben Yossef <>,
	Steven Rostedt <>,
	Peter Zijlstra <>,
	Andrew Morton <>,
	Rik van Riel <>, Tejun Heo <>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <>,
	Thomas Gleixner <>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <>,
	Christoph Lameter <>,
	Viresh Kumar <>,
	Catalin Marinas <>,
	Will Deacon <>,
	Andy Lutomirski <>,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 05/12] task_isolation: support

* Chris Metcalf <> wrote:

> On 03/03/2016 01:34 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> >Chris Metcalf <> writes:
> >>+	bool "Provide task isolation on all CPUs by default (except CPU 0)"
> >>+	depends on TASK_ISOLATION
> >>+	help
> >>+	 If the user doesn't pass the task_isolation boot option to
> >>+	 define the range of task isolation CPUs, consider that all
> >>+	 CPUs in the system are task isolation by default.
> >>+	 Note the boot CPU will still be kept outside the range to
> >>+	 handle timekeeping duty, etc.
> >That seems like a very dangerous Kconfig option.
> >If someone sets that by default they will have a lot of trouble.
> >
> >I wouldn't add that, make it a run time option only.
> So you were thinking, allow a special boot syntax "task_isolation=all",
> which puts all the cores into task isolation mode except the boot core?
> My original argument was that it was so parallel to the existing
> CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL_ALL option that it just made sense to do it,
> and some testers complained about having to specify the precise
> cpu range, so this seemed like an easy fix.

Yes, it's absolutely legitimate to offer boot options as Kconfig options as well - 
in fact that will get things like randconfig bootups stumble upon them and do some 
free testing for you. Just ignore Andi's nonsensical objection.

One day we'll have a unified boot parameter/Kconfig/sysctl mechanism, so that it 
will be possible to say things like this on the boot command line:


... which will eliminate quite a bit of the current schizm between Kconfig and 
boot time parameters.



Powered by blists - more mailing lists