linux-kernel - Re: [patch for-3.7] mm, mempolicy: fix printing stack contents in numa

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 20 Nov 2012 19:59:57 -0500
From:	Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...il.com>,
	bhutchings@...arflare.com,
	Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...nvz.org>,
	Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>,
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [patch for-3.7] mm, mempolicy: fix printing stack contents in numa_maps

Ping? Can someone take it before it's lost?

On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 4:48 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, 2012-10-25 at 16:09 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 7:39 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > So I think the below should work, we hold the spinlock over both rb-tree
>>> > modification as sp free, this makes mpol_shared_policy_lookup() which
>>> > returns the policy with an incremented refcount work with just the
>>> > spinlock.
>>> >
>>> > Comments?
>>>
>>> Looks reasonable, if annoyingly complex for something that shouldn't
>>> be important enough for this. Oh well.
>>
>> I agree with that.. Its just that when doing numa placement one needs to
>> respect the pre-existing placement constraints. I've not seen a way
>> around this.
>>
>>> However, please check me on this: the need for this is only for
>>> linux-next right now, correct? All the current users in my tree are ok
>>> with just the mutex, no?
>>
>> Yes, the need comes from the numa stuff and I'll stick this patch in
>> there.
>>
>> I completely missed Mel's patch turning it into a mutex, but I guess
>> that's what -next is for :-).
>
> So I've been fuzzing with it for the past couple of days and it's been
> looking fine with it. Can someone grab it into his tree please?
>
>
> Thanks,
> Sasha
--
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/