linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH V2 01/22] x86/intel_rdt: Documentation for Cache Pseudo-Locking

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:   Mon, 19 Feb 2018 14:24:00 -0800
From:   Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     fenghua.yu@...el.com, tony.luck@...el.com, gavin.hindman@...el.com,
        vikas.shivappa@...ux.intel.com, dave.hansen@...el.com,
        mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH V2 01/22] x86/intel_rdt: Documentation for Cache
 Pseudo-Locking

Hi Thomas,

On 2/19/2018 2:19 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> It is required that the user space application self sets affinity to
>> cores associated with the cache. This is also highlighted in the example
>> application code (later in this patch) within the comments as well as
>> the example usage of sched_setaffinity(). The enforcement done in the
>> kernel code is done as a check that the user space application did so,
>> no the actual affinity management.
> 
> Right, but your documentation claims it's enforced. There is no enforcement
> aside of the initial sanity check.

I see the confusion. I will fix the documentation to clarify that it is
a sanity check.

Thank you

Reinette