linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/14] Modularize schedutil

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: <20200513085719.GA225140@google.com>
Date:   Wed, 13 May 2020 09:57:19 +0100
From:   Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>
To:     Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Benjamin Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Iurii Zaikin <yzaikin@...gle.com>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
        Todd Kjos <tkjos@...gle.com>,
        "Cc: Android Kernel" <kernel-team@...roid.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/14] Modularize schedutil

Hey Joel,

On Tuesday 12 May 2020 at 11:49:32 (-0400), Joel Fernandes wrote:
> Also, does this series make it easier for vendors / oems / whoever to
> carry out-of-tree schedutil hacks saying that's "Ok" because that's
> not part of the core GKI? That would definitely be a bad thing to
> encourage as well. schedutil should pretty much be considered a part
> of the core GKI if the goal is to encourage everyone to move to it,
> IMO.

Sure, but I don't think the series makes it easier to carry out-of-tree
stuff. Vendors will have the choice to load the governor they want. Some
will use schedutil, some will use other upstream governors, and some will
use their out of tree crap. And that is orthogonal to schedutil being a
module or not.

The only thing that will happen is that they will complain about GKI,
and find examples of things like schedutil that is being forced on
them. Realistically, having schedutil built-in is unlikely to change
their mind about the governor they want to use, it is just likely to
give them reasons not to do the right thing and be GKI compliant.

Thanks,
Quentin