linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/5] Fix FIFO-99 abuse

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20190801131707.5rpyydznnhz474la@e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
Date:   Thu, 1 Aug 2019 14:17:07 +0100
From:   Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     mingo@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Fix FIFO-99 abuse

On 08/01/19 13:13, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> I noticed a bunch of kthreads defaulted to FIFO-99, fix them.
> 
> The generic default is FIFO-50, the admin will have to configure the system
> anyway.
> 
> For some the purpose is to be above OTHER and then FIFO-1 really is sufficient.

I was looking in this area too and was thinking of a way to consolidate the
creation of RT/DL tasks in the kernel and the way we set the priority.

Does it make sense to create a new header for RT priorities for kthreads
created in the kernel so that we can easily track and rationale about the
relative priorities of in-kernel RT tasks?

When working in the FW world such a header helped a lot in understanding what
runs at each priority level and how to reason about what priority level makes
sense for a new item. It could be a nice single point of reference; even for
admins.

Cheers

--
Qais Yousef