linux-kernel - Re: [RFD/RFC PATCH 0/8] Towards implementing proxy execution

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, 9 Oct 2018 12:51:12 +0200
From:   Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To:     Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>
Cc:     peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...hat.com, rostedt@...dmis.org,
        tglx@...utronix.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        luca.abeni@...tannapisa.it, claudio@...dence.eu.com,
        tommaso.cucinotta@...tannapisa.it, alessio.balsini@...il.com,
        bristot@...hat.com, will.deacon@....com,
        andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
        patrick.bellasi@....com, henrik@...tad.us,
        linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFD/RFC PATCH 0/8] Towards implementing proxy execution

On 2018-10-09 11:24:26 [+0200], Juri Lelli wrote:
> The main concerns I have with the current approach is that, being based
> on mutex.c, it's both
> 
>  - not linked with futexes
>  - not involving "legacy" priority inheritance (rt_mutex.c)
> 
> I believe one of the main reasons Peter started this on mutexes is to
> have better coverage of potential problems (which I can assure everybody
> it had). I'm not yet sure what should we do moving forward, and this is
> exactly what I'd be pleased to hear your opinions on.

wasn't the idea that once it works to get rid of rt_mutex?

Sebastian