From: Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
Cc: ak@muc.de, akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix argument checking in sched_setaffinity
Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2004 20:48:50 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040904204850.48b7cfbd.pj@sgi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0409041827280.2331@ppc970.osdl.org>
Linus wrote:
> /* We just assume that 8k CPU's aren't going to happen */
SGI doesn't so assume ;).
> but it's just a lot easier to do the "getaffinity" thing - if it fails,
> you can double the size of your buffer and try again. O(log(n)) rather
> than O(n) ;)
I agree. That's what my cpumask sizing loop does.
Well ... did.
Now it reads /sys/devices/system/node/node0/cpumap and computes the
size of the cpumask as an arithmetic function of the number of bytes
read (the ascii format uses 9 chars for each 32 bits of mask).
Either way works ...
My nodemask sizing code loops on get_mempolicy() calls of increasing
size, until they stop failing -EINVAL.
> Well, historically we _have_ required sizes to match.
I'm not sure what history you're looking at here, Linus.
Last weeks sys_sched_setaffinity didn't seem to require matching size,
only that user size is >= kernel size. The kernel ignored the extra
user bits.
For nodemask_t, well let me just say the mbind/mempolicy calls are different.
If we want to go in the direction of requiring sizes to match in the
'set' calls, then instead of this weeks changes to sys_sched_setaffinity
allowing user size < kernel size, shouldn't we be going the other way,
and tightening the check in kernel/sched.c:sys_sched_setaffinity(), from
what it was a week ago:
if (len < sizeof(new_mask))
return -EINVAL;
to:
if (len != sizeof(new_mask))
return -EINVAL;
Or at least reverting this last weeks changes back to the '<' check?
> I don't know how to sanely expose the damn things
How about:
$ cd /proc/sys/kernel
$ head sizeof*
==> sizeof_cpumask <==
64
==> sizeof_nodemask <==
32
--
I won't rest till it's the best ...
Programmer, Linux Scalability
Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com> 1.650.933.1373
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-09-05 3:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-08-31 14:30 [PATCH] Fix argument checking in sched_setaffinity Andi Kleen
2004-09-01 1:36 ` Paul Jackson
2004-09-01 1:59 ` Anton Blanchard
2004-09-02 9:33 ` Paul Jackson
2004-09-04 13:40 ` Andi Kleen
2004-09-05 14:27 ` Anton Blanchard
2004-09-04 13:37 ` Andi Kleen
[not found] ` <20040904171417.67649169.pj@sgi.com>
2004-09-05 0:18 ` Linus Torvalds
2004-09-05 1:05 ` Paul Jackson
2004-09-05 1:38 ` Linus Torvalds
2004-09-05 3:48 ` Paul Jackson [this message]
2004-09-05 3:57 ` Linus Torvalds
2004-09-05 4:17 ` Paul Jackson
2004-09-05 4:52 ` Paul Jackson
2004-09-06 18:23 ` Andi Kleen
2004-09-06 18:48 ` Linus Torvalds
2004-09-06 21:11 ` Paul Jackson
2004-09-07 8:07 ` Andi Kleen
2004-09-06 13:16 ` Andi Kleen
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=20040904204850.48b7cfbd.pj@sgi.com \
--to=pj@sgi.com \
--cc=ak@muc.de \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@osdl.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox