linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched_ext: Fix ops.dequeue() semantics

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: <aVHAZNbIJLLBHEXY@slm.duckdns.org>
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2025 13:42:28 -1000
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Andrea Righi <arighi@...dia.com>
Cc: David Vernet <void@...ifault.com>, Changwoo Min <changwoo@...lia.com>,
	Emil Tsalapatis <emil@...alapatis.com>,
	Daniel Hodges <hodgesd@...a.com>, sched-ext@...ts.linux.dev,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched_ext: Fix ops.dequeue() semantics

Hello,

On Fri, Dec 19, 2025 at 11:43:14PM +0100, Andrea Righi wrote:
> +   Once ``ops.enqueue()`` is called, the task is considered "enqueued" and
> +   is owned by the BPF scheduler. Ownership is retained until the task is

Can we avoid using "ownership" for this? From user's POV, this is fine but
kernel side internally uses the word for different purposes - e.g. we say
the BPF side owns the task if the task's SCX_OPSS_QUEUED is set (ie. it's on
BPF data structure, not on a DSQ). Here, the ownership encompasses both
kernel-side and BPF-side queueing, so the term becomes rather confusing.
Maybe we can stick with "queued" or "enqueued"?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun