linux-kernel - Issue: Can padata avoid dealing with CPU-related operations?

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 27 Sep 2023 21:25:54 +0800
From:   Wang Jinchao <wangjinchao@...sion.com>
To:     Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>,
        Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com>,
        <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
CC:     <stone.xulei@...sion.com>
Subject: Issue: Can padata avoid dealing with CPU-related operations?

Hello, I have a few questions about the padata code I've been studying recently:

- Why does padata use the WQ_UNBOUND attribute of the workqueue? Because I've noticed a significant maintenance cost related to CPUs. Are there any specific benefits?

- In what scenarios is it necessary to specify a CPU for serial execution, or is ensuring the order sufficient?

In fact, the two questions can be summarized into one: Is it possible to avoid handling CPU-related operations to simplify the code logic?

Thanks.