linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 00/16] sched: Core scheduling

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: <c1aedc4d-0821-95d0-8f50-cee6526e7779@oracle.com>
Date:   Wed, 20 Feb 2019 10:43:09 -0800
From:   Subhra Mazumdar <subhra.mazumdar@...cle.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Greg Kerr <kerrnel@...gle.com>
Cc:     mingo@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
        tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, fweisbec@...il.com,
        keescook@...omium.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 00/16] sched: Core scheduling


On 2/20/19 1:42 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
> Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
> A: Top-posting.
> Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
>
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 02:07:01PM -0800, Greg Kerr wrote:
>> Thanks for posting this patchset Peter. Based on the patch titled, "sched: A
>> quick and dirty cgroup tagging interface," I believe cgroups are used to
>> define co-scheduling groups in this implementation.
>>
>> Chrome OS engineers (kerrnel@...gle.com, mpdenton@...gle.com, and
>> palmer@...gle.com) are considering an interface that is usable by unprivileged
>> userspace apps. cgroups are a global resource that require privileged access.
>> Have you considered an interface that is akin to namespaces? Consider the
>> following strawperson API proposal (I understand prctl() is generally
>> used for process
>> specific actions, so we aren't married to using prctl()):
> I don't think we're anywhere near the point where I care about
> interfaces with this stuff.
>
> Interfaces are a trivial but tedious matter once the rest works to
> satisfaction.
>
> As it happens; there is actually a bug in that very cgroup patch that
> can cause undesired scheduling. Try spotting and fixing that.
>
> Another question is if we want to be L1TF complete (and how strict) or
> not, and if so, build the missing pieces (for instance we currently
> don't kick siblings on IRQ/trap/exception entry -- and yes that's nasty
> and horrible code and missing for that reason).
I remember asking Paul about this and he mentioned he has a Address Space
Isolation proposal to cover this. So it seems this is out of scope of
core scheduling?
>
> So first; does this provide what we need? If that's sorted we can
> bike-shed on uapi/abi.