linux-kernel - Re: 2.6.25-rc7-git2: Reported regressions from 2.6.24

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]

Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.1.00.0803281231000.14670@woody.linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Fri, 28 Mar 2008 12:32:03 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
cc:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	Pawel Staszewski <pstaszewski@...com.pl>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Natalie Protasevich <protasnb@...il.com>
Subject: Re: 2.6.25-rc7-git2: Reported regressions from 2.6.24



On Fri, 28 Mar 2008, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> 
> __GFP_ZERO is cleared in one place when new_slab() calls allocate_slab(). 

You're so full of crap that it's not even funny.

The fact that one path does it correct makes it ok to do it wrong in 
another path?

> The fallback code in 2.6.25 will go away in 2.6.26.

And the fact that 2.5.26 may fix it differently makes it ok to be buggy in 
2.6.25?

You are not making any sense what-so-ever.

		Linus
--
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/