linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] char: xillybus: add WQ_PERCPU to alloc

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: <68ad3747-a912-7644-d9c3-e6137da4e555@outbound.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2025 15:52:17 +0100
From: Eli Billauer <eli.billauer@...il.com>
To: Marco Crivellari <marco.crivellari@...e.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
 Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
 Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
 Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
 Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] char: xillybus: add WQ_PERCPU to alloc_workqueue users

Hello Marco,

Thanks for this heads-up. Frankly speaking, I wasn't aware that the said 
calls to alloc_workqueue() implicitly bind the queue to a CPU, and this 
was never my intention. I agree that the better choice is an unbound 
queue, at least in this case.

This seems to be an example for why the API change of alloc_workqueue() 
is a good idea.

As for the patch itself, it perpetuates the incorrect choice, so I vote 
against. If anything, WQ_UNBOUND should be added, but since it's going 
to be the default (soon?), maybe just let it be, and let the planned 
change in the API rectify this.

Thanks,
   Eli