linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 8/8] task: rust: rework how current is accessed

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: <Z0Dbvbj39c87EQTq@casper.infradead.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2024 19:30:05 +0000
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
Cc: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>, Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
	Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>,
	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
	John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
	"Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
	Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
	Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
	Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>, Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>,
	Björn Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>,
	Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org,
	Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 8/8] task: rust: rework how current is accessed

On Fri, Nov 22, 2024 at 11:17:15AM -0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > I don't think this is a problem? As long as a thread exists somewhere
> > with `current` being equal to the task, we should be fine?
> > 
> 
> I think I had a misunderstanding on what you meant by "operations
> that are only valid on the current task", you mean these operations can
> be run by other threads, but it has to be *on* a task_struct that's
> "currently running", right? BTW, you probably want to reword a bit,
> because the "current" task may be blocked, so technically it's not
> "running".
> 
> Basically, the operations that `CurrentTask` have are the methods that
> are safe to call (even on a different thread) for the "current" task, as
> long as it exists (not dead or exited). In that definition, not being
> `Sync` is fine.
> 
> But I have to admit I'm a bit worried that people may be confused, and
> add new methods that can be only run by the current thread in the
> future.

I agree, I think CurrentTask should refer to "current".  Or we'll
confuse everyone.  Would ActiveTask be a good name for this CurrentTask?