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
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2010 11:40:13 +0200 From: Mike Galbraith <mgalbraith@...e.de> To: Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk> Cc: Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...nel.org, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, stable-review@...nel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk Subject: Re: [Stable-review] [064/123] sched: Protect task->cpus_allowed access in sched_getaffinity() On Sun, 2010-09-19 at 07:10 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Sat, 2010-09-18 at 21:32 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > I'm somewhat disturbed by the number of non-trivial scheduler changes > > here. How well have these been tested as applied to the 2.6.32.y > > branch? > > All of them of course. (parse error) The patch set saw a lot of stress and benchmark hours on boxen large and small, to be as sure as anyone can be that it was not going to upset the enterprise apple cart, nor harm the desktop. I call it heavily tested, but can't post a detailed log of everything done on every box for others to decide for themselves, since I didn't compile same. -Mike -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists