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: <20201202113410.dx4m2gb7zkyregys@e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
Date:   Wed, 2 Dec 2020 11:34:10 +0000
From:   Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>
To:     Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Cc:     Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>,
        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>,
        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 09/14] cpuset: Don't use the cpu_possible_mask as a
 last resort for cgroup v1

On 12/01/20 22:30, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 01, 2020 at 03:56:49PM +0000, Quentin Perret wrote:
> > On Tuesday 01 Dec 2020 at 14:11:21 (+0000), Qais Yousef wrote:
> > > For cpusets, if hotunplug results in an empty cpuset, then all tasks are moved
> > > to the nearest ancestor if I read the code correctly. In our case, only 32bit
> > > tasks have to move out to retain this behavior. Since now for the first time we
> > > have tasks that can't run on all cpus.
> > > 
> > > Which by the way might be the right behavior for 64bit tasks execing 32bit
> > > binary in a 64bit only cpuset. I suggested SIGKILL'ing them but maybe moving
> > > them to the nearest ancestor too is more aligned with the behavior above.
> > 
> > Hmm, I guess that means putting all 32-bit-execd-from-64-bit tasks in
> > the root group in Android. I'll try and check the implications, but that
> > might be just fine... Sounds like a sensible behaviour to me anyways.
> 
> I'll look into this -- anything we can do to avoid forcefully resetting the
> affinity mask to the arch_task_cpu_possible_mask() is worth considering.

Happy to lend a hand, just let me know.

Thanks

--
Qais Yousef

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ