linux-kernel - Re: virtio pull for 4.5 (was Re: [PULL] virtio: barrier rework+fixes)

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:	Thu, 21 Jan 2016 12:23:07 +0200
From:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	KVM list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
	virtualization <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>,
	Rafael Aquini <aquini@...hat.com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...ymobile.com>,
	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, tony.luck@...el.com
Subject: Re: virtio pull for 4.5 (was Re: [PULL] virtio: barrier rework+fixes)

On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 05:01:26PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 5:21 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@...hat.com> wrote:
> > Hi Linus,
> > Just making sure nothing's wrong with this pull request.
> > If there's an issue, pls let me know!
> 
> It was just pulled because I wasn't 100% sure I wanted the extra
> indirection. Oh well, pulled now.
> 
> One question:
> 
>  - the arch/sh/ part of the pacth looks dubious. Why does it do that
> 
>      #define smp_store_mb(var, value) __smp_store_mb(var, value)
> 
>    despite the commit log saying it's done by asm-generic?
> 
> I haven't pushed out yet, my allmodconfig sanity-check build is still going..
> 
>                       Linus

Oh that's because that's what the existing code did, so
the original version of the patch left the bug in place.
I wanted to include the fix and I wrote this in the
commit message, but I forgot to include it in the code :(

Thankfully this just means that the commit log is wrong,
the code is just unchanged from 4.4, and I'll
include a fix in my tree shortly.

-- 
MST