linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] livepatch: Avoid CPU hogging with cond

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, 7 Jan 2022 09:13:08 -0500
From:   Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@...hat.com>
To:     David Vernet <void@...ifault.com>, live-patching@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jpoimboe@...hat.com,
        pmladek@...e.com, jikos@...nel.org, mbenes@...e.cz
Subject: Re: [PATCH] livepatch: Avoid CPU hogging with cond_resched

On 12/29/21 4:56 PM, David Vernet wrote:
> For example, under certain workloads, enabling a KLP patch with
> many objects or functions may cause ksoftirqd to be starved, and thus for
> interrupts to be backlogged and delayed.

Just curious, approximately how many objects/functions does it take to
hit this condition?  While the livepatching kselftests are more about
API and kernel correctness, this sounds like an interesting test case
for some of the other (out of tree) test suites.

Thanks,
-- 
Joe