linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] sched/urgent for 5.17-rc4

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:   Mon, 14 Feb 2022 09:46:15 -1000
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
        Tadeusz Struk <tadeusz.struk@...aro.org>,
        x86-ml <x86@...nel.org>, lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        zhangqiao22@...wei.com, dietmar.eggemann@....com
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] sched/urgent for 5.17-rc4

On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 08:35:54PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> So there's two things that need doing; the re-cloning of the task_group
> thing, but also calling of __set_task_cpu() which sets up the proper
> runqueue links.
> 
> The first is CGroup only, and *could* in theory be done in ->can_fork(),
> but the second needs to be done unconditionally, and it doesn't make
> much sense to split this up.
> 
> I actually tried, but it made the patch bigger/uglier -- but maybe I
> didn't try hard enough.

If there needs to be a separate call anyway, it prolly is better to keep
them together. It'd just be nice to mention why cpu is different in this
regard in a comment.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun