linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] workqueue: Introduce PF_WQ_RESCUE

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: <20230801100420.939677-1-atomlin@atomlin.com>
Date:   Tue,  1 Aug 2023 11:04:20 +0100
From:   Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@...mlin.com>
To:     peterz@...radead.org, tj@...nel.org
Cc:     atomlin@...mlin.com, jiangshanlai@...il.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] workqueue: Introduce PF_WQ_RESCUE_WORKER

> Is the implication that PF_flags are considered ABI? We've been changing
> them quite a bit over the years.

Hi Peter, Tejun,

I never assumed they were.

In this context, one should always check the Linux kernel source code first
i.e. do not assume what is exported via /proc/[PID]/stat will be stable/or
consistent between releases.

> Also, while we have a few spare bits atm, we used to be nearly out for a
> while, and I just don't think this is sane usage of them. We don't use PF
> flags just for userspace.

Fair statement.

Albeit, I suspect it would still be useful for user-mode to easily
differentiate between a kworker and a rescuer kworker. According to
create_worker(), we do make it clear the difference between a CPU-specific
and unbound kworker by way of the task's name. Looking at init_rescuer() a
rescuer kworker is simply given the name of its workqueue. Would you
consider modifying the rescuer's task's name so it is prefixed with
"kworker/r-%s" and then include the workqueue's name e.g.
"kworker/r-ext4-rsv-conver" acceptable?

Kind regards,
-- 
Aaron Tomlin