linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched/topology: Assert non-NUMA topology masks don't (partially) overlap

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:   Thu, 16 Jan 2020 10:48:52 +0000
From:   Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, sudeep.holla@....com,
        prime.zeng@...ilicon.com, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
        morten.rasmussen@....com, mingo@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/topology: Assert non-NUMA topology masks don't
 (partially) overlap



On 16/01/2020 10:44, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 04:09:15PM +0000, Valentin Schneider wrote:
>> A "less intrusive" alternative is to assert the sd->groups list doesn't get
>> re-written, which is a symptom of such bogus topologies. I've briefly
>> tested this, you can have a look at it here:
>>
>>   http://www.linux-arm.org/git?p=linux-vs.git;a=commit;h=e0ead72137332cbd3d69c9055ab29e6ffae5b37b
> 
> Something like that might still make sense. Can't never be too careful,
> right ;-)
> 

True. I'll ponder about it and see if I can't make it a bit neater