From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Cc: fweisbec@gmail.com, mingo@elte.hu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
oleg@redhat.com, travis@sgi.com, a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl,
mm-commits@vger.kernel.org, rusty@rustcorp.com.au
Subject: Re: + work_on_cpu-rewrite-it-to-create-a-kernel-thread-on-demand.patch added to -mm tree
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 14:20:21 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090212142021.3978072c.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <m1eiy3z4ty.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org>
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 14:08:09 -0800
ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) wrote:
> Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> writes:
>
> > The problem with set_cpus_allowed() is that some other
> > suitably-privileged userspace process can come in from the side and
> > modify your cpus_allowed at any time.
>
> According to the comments the only reason we care is so that
> we get the appropriate NUMA affinity by default. I don't
> think it would be fatal if userspace messed around and we
> had a wrong value.
Right. In this particular case, if you are fantastically unlucky and
hit the race window, all that will happen is that one particular device
will run a bit more slowly.
But at other codesites, the effects of a racing cpus_allowed rewrite
can be fatal.
> Does work_on_cpu prevent that?
Yup.
I think.
Nope.
I don't think there's actually anything which would prevent a
sufficiently stupid/malicious/unlucky administrator from moving the
work_on_cpu thread onto the wrong CPU at the wrong time. hrm.
Another reason to use smp_call_function_single().
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)
Cc: fweisbec@gmail.com, mingo@elte.hu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
oleg@redhat.com, travis@sgi.com, a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl,
mm-commits@vger.kernel.org, rusty@rustcorp.com.au
Subject: Re: + work_on_cpu-rewrite-it-to-create-a-kernel-thread-on-demand.patch added to -mm tree
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 14:20:21 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090212142021.3978072c.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <m1eiy3z4ty.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org>
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 14:08:09 -0800
ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) wrote:
> Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> writes:
>
> > The problem with set_cpus_allowed() is that some other
> > suitably-privileged userspace process can come in from the side and
> > modify your cpus_allowed at any time.
>
> According to the comments the only reason we care is so that
> we get the appropriate NUMA affinity by default. I don't
> think it would be fatal if userspace messed around and we
> had a wrong value.
Right. In this particular case, if you are fantastically unlucky and
hit the race window, all that will happen is that one particular device
will run a bit more slowly.
But at other codesites, the effects of a racing cpus_allowed rewrite
can be fatal.
> Does work_on_cpu prevent that?
Yup.
I think.
Nope.
I don't think there's actually anything which would prevent a
sufficiently stupid/malicious/unlucky administrator from moving the
work_on_cpu thread onto the wrong CPU at the wrong time. hrm.
Another reason to use smp_call_function_single().
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-02-12 22:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-02-03 10:58 + work_on_cpu-rewrite-it-to-create-a-kernel-thread-on-demand.patch added to -mm tree akpm
2009-02-03 12:11 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-02-03 16:58 ` Frédéric Weisbecker
2009-02-03 19:25 ` Andrew Morton
2009-02-04 3:58 ` Rusty Russell
2009-02-04 4:16 ` Andrew Morton
2009-02-04 10:46 ` Rusty Russell
2009-02-12 20:38 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-02-12 20:48 ` Andrew Morton
2009-02-12 20:48 ` Andrew Morton
2009-02-12 22:08 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-02-12 22:13 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-02-12 22:23 ` Andrew Morton
2009-02-12 23:04 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-02-12 22:20 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2009-02-12 22:20 ` Andrew Morton
2009-02-13 21:21 ` Rusty Russell
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20090212142021.3978072c.akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=mm-commits@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
--cc=travis@sgi.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.