linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched/core: Introduce task_*() helpers for PF

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: <aA0rIx11qx1E4ISF@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2025 20:51:15 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, x86@...nel.org,
	Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@...ia.fr>,
	Nicolas Palix <nicolas.palix@...g.fr>, cocci@...ia.fr,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/core: Introduce task_*() helpers for PF_ flags


* Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:

>  - We might want to add set_task_*() helpers as well, to totally 
>    encapsulate PF_ uses. Maybe. I dislike how close it is to the 
>    existing set_tsk*() methods that manipulate TIF_ flags. The 
>    dichotomy between the TIF_ and PF_ space isn't really sensible these 
>    days I think on a conceptual level - although merging them is 
>    probably not practical due to possibly running out of easy 64-bit 
>    word width.

And yeah, the TIF_ space is per arch to a substantial degree, and is 
accessed from assembly code, plus is often operated on atomically, 
while the PF_ space is nicely generic and non-atomic - but still we 
could do better to express that these two per task flag spaces are 
rather similar in purpose, instead of this historic 'task/process' 
distinction that isn't actually true.

Thanks,

	Ingo