linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] task_work: use TIF

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, 02 Oct 2020 21:10:40 +0200
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, io-uring@...r.kernel.org,
        peterz@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] task_work: use TIF_TASKWORK if available

On Fri, Oct 02 2020 at 09:52, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 10/2/20 9:31 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> This way task_work_run() doesn't need to clear TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL and it can
>>> have more users.
>> 
>> I think it's fundamentaly wrong that we have several places and several
>> flags which handle task_work_run() instead of having exactly one place
>> and one flag.
>
> I don't disagree with that. I know it's not happening in this series, but
> if we to the TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL route and get all archs supporting that,
> then we can kill the signal and notify resume part of running task_work.
> And that leaves us with exactly one place that runs it.
>
> So we can potentially improve the current situation in that regard.

I'll think about it over the weekend.