linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH sched_ext/for-6.11 2/2] sched_ext: Implement scx_bpf_consume

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: Fri, 28 Jun 2024 15:35:54 -1000
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
	David Vernet <void@...ifault.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH sched_ext/for-6.11 2/2] sched_ext: Implement
 scx_bpf_consume_task()

Hello, Andrii.

On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 04:56:55PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > Just a bit of addition and a question. scx_bpf_consume_task() is maybe named
> > too generically and I have a hard time imagining it being useful outside
> > iteration loop. So, it does work out kinda neatly if we can tie the whole
> > thing (DSQ lookup, barrier seq) to the iterator.
> >
> > The reason why this becomes nasty is because I can't pass the pointer to the
> > iterator to a kfunc, so maybe allowing that can be a solution here too?
> 
> Sure, if that's the best way to go about this.

If we decide to go this way, how difficult would it be to change the
verifier to allow this?

BTW, as none of the practical schedulers use consume_task() yet, I can skip
this for now. I'll post an updated patches for the iterator itself. We can
decide what to do with consume_task() later.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun