linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] slub: make sysfs file removal asynchronous

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:   Wed, 28 Jun 2017 09:47:13 -0500 (CDT)
From:   Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To:     Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
cc:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] slub: make sysfs file removal asynchronous

On Tue, 20 Jun 2017, Tejun Heo wrote:

> And we have to weight that against the possibility of breakage from
> the backport, however low it may be, right?  I'm not strongly
> convinced either way on this one and AFAICS the slub sysfs files there
> are mostly for debugging, so we'd be risking breakage in a way more
> common path (kmem_cache destruction) to avoid unlikely deadlock with a
> debug facility.  I think -stable backports should be conservative and
> justified as breaking things through -stable undermines the whole
> thing.

The sysfs files are mainly used for reporting (the "slabinfo" tool
accesses these files f.e.)

But given the high rate of breakage of sysfs related patches: Lets just
skip stable for now.