linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] introduce task_rcu

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: <20160526113443.GJ3192@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Thu, 26 May 2016 13:34:43 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:	Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...allels.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...allels.com>,
	Kirill Tkhai <tkhai@...dex.ru>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] introduce task_rcu_dereference()

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 09:57:33PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Do we really want try_get_task_struct() here? How about the change below?
> 
> To me it would be more clean to do get_task_struct() in task_numa_assign(),
> it clearly pairs with put_task_struct(best_task) and task_numa_compare()
> looks a bit simpler this way, no need to put_task_struct() if we nullify
> cur.
> 
> What do you think? In any case I think the change in sched/fair.c should
> probably come as a separate patch, but this is up to you.

You are quite right. I've added your SoB to this patch if you don't
mind -- and I've attributed the task_rcu_dereference() thing to you too,
as all I did was copy paste different bits of your emails together while
trying to get my head around it ;-)