linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] sched: Use user_cpus_ptr for saving user provided cpumask in sched

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: <58f4533b-6d0e-dc5f-2b8c-986212598125@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 18 Aug 2022 07:37:51 -0700
From:   Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
        Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Zefan Li <lizefan.x@...edance.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] sched: Use user_cpus_ptr for saving user provided
 cpumask in sched_setaffinity()

On 8/17/22 04:28, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 03:27:32PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>
>> This will be some changes in behavior for arm64 systems with asymmetric
>> CPUs in some corner cases. For instance, if sched_setaffinity()
>> has never been called and there is a cpuset change before
>> relax_compatible_cpus_allowed_ptr() is called, its subsequent call will
>> follow what the cpuset allows but not what the previous cpu affinity
>> setting allows.
> That's arguably a correctness fix, no? That is, the save/restore should
> not have been allowed to revert to an earlier cpuset state.

Yes, it is a correctness fix in a sense. I just want to highlight that 
there will be some slight changes in behavior in some corner cases for 
the arm64 arch.

Cheers,
Longman