linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH wq/for-6.9] workqueue: Fix queue_work

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: <CAHk-=wiVWmTfaCUjZYrV6pVh3O6hYksKsWx4bJY0EhNNat9QDg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 11:03:46 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH wq/for-6.9] workqueue: Fix queue_work_on() with BH workqueues

On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 at 10:39, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> When queue_work_on() is used to queue a BH work item on a remote CPU, the
> work item is queued on that CPU but kick_pool() raises softirq on the local
> CPU.

Now, does it make a lot of sense to ask to queue a BH work on another
CPU in the first place?

I don't think tasklets supported that. And while the workqueues
obviously do - and you fix that case - I wonder if we shouldn't say
"that operation makes no sense, please don't do it" rather than
actually support it?

What made you notice this issue?

                  Linus