linux-kernel - Re: x86 status was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23

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

Date:	Wed, 11 Jul 2007 17:46:21 -0400
From:	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>
Subject: Re: x86 status was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23

On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 23:16:38 +0200, Andi Kleen said:

(Note - I'm just a usually-confused crash test dummy here...)

> Well I spent a lot of time making the x86-64 timing code work
> well on a variety of machines; working around a wide variety
> of hardware and platform bugs. I obviously don't agree on your description
> of its maintenance state. 

I'm seeing a bit of a disconnect here.  If you spent all that time making it
work, how come the guys who developed the patch are saying you didn't provide
any feedback about the patchset?

> > What contribution do we have from you instead? A week before the .23 
> 
> I told him my objections privately earlier. Basically i would
> like to see an actually debuggable step-by-step change, not a rip everything 
> out.

Odd, I looked at the patchset fairly closely a number of times, as I was
hand-retrofitting the -rc[1-4] versions onto -rc[1-4]-mm kernels, and it looked
to *me* like it was a nice set of 20 or so step-by-step changes (bisectable
and everything - I got to do that once trying to figure out which one I botched).
Was there something in there that I missed?

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped