linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] 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]

Date:   Thu,  3 Aug 2023 21:19:14 +0100
From:   Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@...mlin.com>
To:     tj@...nel.org
Cc:     atomlin@...mlin.com, jiangshanlai@...il.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, peterz@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] workqueue: Introduce PF_WQ_RESCUE_WORKER

> But why do you need to identify rescue workers? What are you trying to
> achieve?

Hi Tejun,

I had a conversation with a colleague of mine. It can be useful to identify
and account for all kernel threads. From the perspective of user-mode, the
name given currently to the rescuer kworker is ambiguous. For instance,
"kworker/u16:9-kcryptd/253:0" is clearly identifiable as an unbound kworker
for the specified workqueue which can have their CPU affinity adjusted as
you mentioned before. I think if we followed the same naming convention
for a rescuer kworker then it would be more consistent. I'll send a patch
so it can be discussed further.

Kind regards,
-- 
Aaron Tomlin