linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH V2 13/22] x86/intel_rdt: Support schemata write

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 28 Feb 2018 20:40:43 +0100 (CET)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
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 13/22] x86/intel_rdt: Support schemata write -
 pseudo-locking core

On Wed, 28 Feb 2018, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> On 2/28/2018 10:39 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > I came up with this under the assumptions:
> > 
> >   1) One locked region per resource group
> >   2) Drop closid after locking
> 
> I am also now working under these assumptions ...
> 
> > Then the restrict file makes a lot of sense because it would give a clear
> > selection of the possible resource to lock.
> 
> ... but I am still stuck on why this restrict file is needed at this
> time. Surely it would be needed if later we add the more flexible
> exclusive mode, but I do not understand how it helps the locked mode.

You're right. Brainfart on my side. With that scheme it's really only
useful for a flexible exclusive mode, which would be nice to have but is
not a prerequisite for now.

Thanks,

	tglx