linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] allow multiple kthreadd's

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:   Fri, 1 May 2020 11:30:38 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:     "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...hat.com>,
        "open list:NFS, SUNRPC, AND..." <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, Shaohua Li <shli@...com>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] allow multiple kthreadd's

On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 11:22 AM Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> Looks fine to me too. I don't quite understand the usecase tho. It looks
> like all it's being used for is to tag some kthreads as belonging to the
> same group. Can't that be done with kthread_data()?

I _think_ Bruce wants the signal handling unification too, because
nfsd wants to react to being shut down with signals.

But you're right, more explanation of why nfsd wants/needs a separate
grouping is a good idea.

                    Linus