linux-kernel - Re: Slow DOWN, please!!!

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:	Thu, 1 May 2008 05:48:43 +0300
From:	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	mingo@...e.hu, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, rjw@...k.pl,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jirislaby@...il.com,
	tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: Slow DOWN, please!!!

On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 03:51:49PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
> Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 00:35:09 +0200
> 
> > 
> > * Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
> > 
> > > What we need is not 'negative reinforcement'. That is just nasty, open 
> > > warfare between isolated parties, expressed in a politically correct 
> > > way.
> > 
> > in more detail: any "negative reinforcement" should be on the 
> > _technical_ level, i.e. when changes are handled - not at the broad tree 
> > level.
> 
> Sure, and I'll provide some right here.
> 
> Ingo, let me know what I need to do to change your behavior in
> situations like the one I'm about to describe, ok?
> 
> Today, you merged in this bogus "regression fix".
> 
> commit ae3a0064e6d69068b1c9fd075095da062430bda9
> Author: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
> Date:   Wed Apr 30 00:15:31 2008 +0200
> 
>     inlining: do not allow gcc below version 4 to optimize inlining
>     
>     fix the condition to match intention: always use the old inlining
>     behavior on all gcc versions below 4.
>     
>     this should solve the UML build problem.
>     
>     Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
>     Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
> 
> Did you actually read the UML build failure report?
> 
> Adrian Bunk specifically stated that the UML build failure regression
> occurs with GCC version 4.3
> 
> Next, did you test this regression fix?
> 
> Next, if you could not test this regression fix, did you wait
> patiently for the bug reporter to validate your fix?  Adrian
> responded that it didn't fix the problem, but that was after
> you queued this up to Linus already.
>...

You got the facts wrong, it is even worse:

It was Ingo himself who reported this bug. [1]

Ingo managed to send an untested and not working patch for a bug he 
reported himself...

cu
Adrian

BTW: I finally figured out what is behind the problems on UML, and this
     is not related to any recent kernel changes.
     Patch comes when I'm awake again.

[1] http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/4/26/151

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

--
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/