linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 0/7] sched: Persistent user requested affinity

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:   Thu, 22 Sep 2022 07:56:47 -0400
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>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 0/7] sched: Persistent user requested affinity

On 9/22/22 04:45, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 02:32:10PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>
>> Waiman Long (7):
>>    sched: Add __releases annotations to affine_move_task()
>>    sched: Use user_cpus_ptr for saving user provided cpumask in
>>      sched_setaffinity()
>>    sched: Enforce user requested affinity
>>    sched: Introduce affinity_context structure
>>    sched: Handle set_cpus_allowed_ptr() & sched_setaffinity() race
>>    sched: Fix sched_setaffinity() and fork/clone() race
>>    sched: Always clear user_cpus_ptr in do_set_cpus_allowed()
> I still think this is ordered all wrong. Esp. with that affinity context
> doing the right thing isn't onerous at all.
>
> So please, re-order this and fold all fixes back in so that it becomes
> a sane series. Basically patches 5 and 6 shouldn't exist, they fix
> issues created by the earlier patches.
>
Thanks for the suggestion. Will rework the series as suggested.

Cheers,
Longman