linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -next] cpuset: add cpuset1_online

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: <vprpzrc6g4ad4m2pwj6j5xp3do7pd7djivhgeoutp6z2qmeq22@ttgkqpew7uo4>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2025 15:03:58 +0100
From: Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>
To: Chen Ridong <chenridong@...weicloud.com>
Cc: longman@...hat.com, tj@...nel.org, hannes@...xchg.org, 
	cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, lujialin4@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] cpuset: add cpuset1_online_css helper for
 v1-specific operations

On Tue, Dec 16, 2025 at 08:13:53PM +0800, Chen Ridong <chenridong@...weicloud.com> wrote:
> Regarding the lock assertions: cpuset_mutex is defined in cpuset.c and is not visible in
> cpuset-v1.c. Given that cpuset v1 is deprecated, would you prefer that we add a helper to assert
> cpuset_mutex is locked? Is that worth?

It could be un-static'd and defined in cpuset-internal.h. (Hopefully, we
should not end up with random callers of the helper but it's IMO worth
it for docs and greater safety.)

> Should we guard with !cpuset_v2() or !is_in_v2mode()?
> 
> In cgroup v1, if the cpuset is operating in v2 mode, are these flags still valid?

I have no experience with this transitional option so that made me look
at the docs and there we specify it only affects behaviors of CPU masks,
not the extra flags. So I wanted to suggest !cpuset_v2(), correct?

Thanks,
Michal

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (266 bytes)