linux-kernel - [PATCH 0/1] (Was: introduce for_each_process_thread

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]

Date:	Tue, 26 Jul 2016 20:57:12 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:	Dave Anderson <anderson@...hat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Wang Shu <shuwang@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: [PATCH 0/1] (Was: introduce
 for_each_process_thread_{break,continue}() helpers)

On 07/25, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> IMHO this makes sense in any case, but mostly this is preparation for
> another change: show_state_filter() should be preemptible. But this needs
> more discussion, I'll write another email/patch when I fully understand
> the hard-lockup caused by sysrq-t.

Yes, we need to do something with show_state_filter() anyway, I think.

OTOH, I believe this simple change in multi_cpu_stop() makes sense too
regardless.

Oleg.