linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 11/14] sched: Reject CPU affinity changes based on arch_task_cpu_possible

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: <20201127095452.GB906877@google.com>
Date:   Fri, 27 Nov 2020 09:54:52 +0000
From:   Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>
To:     Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
        Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>,
        Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 11/14] sched: Reject CPU affinity changes based on
 arch_task_cpu_possible_mask()

On Tuesday 24 Nov 2020 at 15:50:36 (+0000), Will Deacon wrote:
> Reject explicit requests to change the affinity mask of a task via
> set_cpus_allowed_ptr() if the requested mask is not a subset of the
> mask returned by arch_task_cpu_possible_mask(). This ensures that the
> 'cpus_mask' for a given task cannot contain CPUs which are incapable of
> executing it, except in cases where the affinity is forced.

I guess mentioning here (or as a comment) the 'funny' behaviour we get
with cpusets wouldn't hurt. But this is a sensible patch nonetheless so:

Reviewed-by: Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>

Thanks,
Quentin