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]

Message-ID: <9837aa4b-1bd4-bc6a-84f7-0b8704995d44@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 9 Oct 2018 13:56:40 +0200
From:   Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>
To:     Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
        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,
        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 10/9/18 12:51 PM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior 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?

As far as I know, it is. But there are some additional complexity
involving a -rt version of this patch, for instance:

What should the protocol do if the thread migrating is with migration
disabled?

The side effects of, for instance, ignoring the migrate_disable() would
add noise for the initial implementation... too much complexity at once.

IMHO, once it works in the non-rt, it will be easier to do the changes
needed to integrate it with -rt.

Thoughts?

-- Daniel