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: <20240624124053.GN31592@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2024 14:40:53 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, mingo@...hat.com, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
	vincent.guittot@...aro.org, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
	rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com, mgorman@...e.de,
	bristot@...hat.com, vschneid@...hat.com, ast@...nel.org,
	daniel@...earbox.net, andrii@...nel.org, martin.lau@...nel.org,
	joshdon@...gle.com, brho@...gle.com, pjt@...gle.com,
	derkling@...gle.com, haoluo@...gle.com, dvernet@...a.com,
	dschatzberg@...a.com, dskarlat@...cmu.edu, riel@...riel.com,
	changwoo@...lia.com, himadrics@...ia.fr, memxor@...il.com,
	andrea.righi@...onical.com, joel@...lfernandes.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
	kernel-team@...a.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 18/39] sched_ext: Allow BPF schedulers to disallow
 specific tasks from joining SCHED_EXT

On Wed, May 01, 2024 at 05:09:53AM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote:
> BPF schedulers might not want to schedule certain tasks - e.g. kernel
> threads. This patch adds p->scx.disallow which can be set by BPF schedulers
> in such cases. The field can be changed anytime and setting it in
> ops.prep_enable() guarantees that the task can never be scheduled by
> sched_ext.

Why ?!?!

By leaving kernel threads fair, and fair sitting above the BPF thing,
it is not dissimilar to promoting them to FIFO. They will instantly
preempt the BPF thing and keep running for as long as they need. The
only real difference between this and actual FIFO is the behaviour on
contention.

This seems like a very bad thing to have, and your 'changelog' has no
justification what so ever.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ