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

Groups > linux.kernel > #1349475 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH v10 05/12] task_isolation: support CONFIG_TASK_ISOLATION_ALL

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: [PATCH v10 05/12] task_isolation: support CONFIG_TASK_ISOLATION_ALL Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> - 2016-03-03 19:40 +0100
    Re: [PATCH v10 05/12] task_isolation: support  CONFIG_TASK_ISOLATION_ALL Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> - 2016-03-03 21:10 +0100

#1349475 — Re: [PATCH v10 05/12] task_isolation: support CONFIG_TASK_ISOLATION_ALL

Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@ezchip.com> writes:
>  
> +config TASK_ISOLATION_ALL
> +	bool "Provide task isolation on all CPUs by default (except CPU 0)"
> +	depends on TASK_ISOLATION
> +	help
> +	 If the user doesn't pass the task_isolation boot option to
> +	 define the range of task isolation CPUs, consider that all
> +	 CPUs in the system are task isolation by default.
> +	 Note the boot CPU will still be kept outside the range to
> +	 handle timekeeping duty, etc.

That seems like a very dangerous Kconfig option.
"CONFIG_BREAK_EVERYTHING"
If someone sets that by default they will have a lot of trouble.

I wouldn't add that, make it a run time option only.

-Andi

-- 
ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1349543 — Re: [PATCH v10 05/12] task_isolation: support CONFIG_TASK_ISOLATION_ALL

> The same arguments would seem to apply to TASK_ISOLATION_ALL;
> note that applications don't actually go into task isolation mode
> without issuing the appropriate prctl(), so it shouldn't be too

That's a fair point. If it's entirely opt-in it's probably ok.

-Andi

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web