Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1208137 > unrolled thread

Re: [RFCv5 PATCH 39/46] sched/cpufreq_sched: use static key for cpu frequency selection

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [RFCv5 PATCH 39/46] sched/cpufreq_sched: use static key for cpu  frequency selection Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-08-15 22:00 +0200

#1208137 — Re: [RFCv5 PATCH 39/46] sched/cpufreq_sched: use static key for cpu frequency selection

On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 08:19:56AM -0700, Michael Turquette wrote:
> > @@ -254,6 +267,7 @@ static int cpufreq_sched_stop(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> >  {
> >         struct gov_data *gd = policy->governor_data;
> >  
> > +       clear_sched_energy_freq();
> 
> <paranoia>
> 
> These controls are exposed to userspace via cpufreq sysfs knobs. Should
> we use a struct static_key_deferred and static_key_slow_dec_deferred()
> instead? This helps avoid a possible attack vector for slowing down the
> system.
> 
> </paranoia>
> 
> I don't really know what a sane default rate limit would be in that case
> though.  Otherwise feel free to add:

Exposed through being able to change the policy, right? No other new
knobs, right?

IIRC the policy is only writable by root, in which case deferred isn't
really needed, root can kill the machine many other ways.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web