linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 6/9] sched: Treat try_to_block

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: <20250415110455.0Qj-4EN2@linutronix.de>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2025 13:04:55 +0200
From: Nam Cao <namcao@...utronix.de>
To: Gabriele Monaco <gmonaco@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Tomas Glozar <tglozar@...hat.com>, Juri Lelli <jlelli@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 6/9] sched: Treat try_to_block_task with pending
 signal as wakeup

On Mon, Apr 14, 2025 at 12:31:12PM +0200, Gabriele Monaco wrote:
> Mmh, that's a good point.
> The thing is: this happens when the signal is generated while we are
> scheduling (on different CPUs), so we take a short-cut and put the task
> to running directly.
> This thing is already racy, so we may or may not see the waking/wakeup.
> 
> Now probably waking shouldn't be there for the reason you said, but I'm
> not sure a wakeup not following a waking would be correct either.
> I might be missing something here, though.

I'm not familiar with signal and sched, so I don't have anything more to
add, sorry.

I presume this is to make the srs monitor works? Perhaps it is possible to
modify the model so that this patch is not required? Let me stare at srs,
maybe I will have something..

Nam