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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2019 11:58:10 +0000 From: Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com> To: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, aaron.lwe@...il.com, mingo@...nel.org, pauld@...hat.com, jdesfossez@...italocean.com, naravamudan@...italocean.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org, dietmar.eggemann@....com, juri.lelli@...hat.com, rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com, mgorman@...e.de, kernel-team@...roid.com, john.stultz@...aro.org Subject: Re: NULL pointer dereference in pick_next_task_fair On Friday 08 Nov 2019 at 11:47:44 (+0000), Valentin Schneider wrote: > I think we can ignore RETRY_TASK because this happens before the picking loop, > so we'll observe any new DL/RT task that got enqueued while newidle released > the lock. This also means we can safely break the balance loop in > pick_next_task() when we get RETRY_TASK, because we've got something to pick > (some new RT/DL task). Ah right, the second loop always iterates from DL, so that works. > This wants a comment though, methinks. +1 :) Thanks, Quentin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists