linux-kernel - Re: 2.6.26-rc5-mm2

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: <200806120958.38545.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Date:	Thu, 12 Jun 2008 09:58:38 +1000
From:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
To:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.26-rc5-mm2

On Thursday 12 June 2008 04:09, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 18:48:21 +1000
>
> Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au> wrote:
> > > > The tmpfs PageSwapBacked stuff seems rather broken. For
> > > > them write_begin/write_end path, it is filemap.c, not shmem.c,
> > > > which allocates the page, so its no wonder it goes bug. Will
> > > > try to do more testing without shmem.
>
> Fun, so what does shmem_alloc_page do?
>
> > > rikstuff.  Could be that the merge caused a problem?
> >
> > Doesn't look like it, but I hadn't followed the changes too closely:
> > rather they just need to test loopback over tmpfs.
>
> Does loopback over tmpfs use a different allocation path?

I'm sorry, hmm I didn't look closely enough and forgot that
write_begin/write_end requires the callee to allocate the page
as well, and that Hugh had nicely unified most of that.

So maybe it's not that. It's pretty easy to hit I found with
ext2 mounted over loopback on a tmpfs file.


> > Is the plan to merge all reclaim changes in a big hit, rather than
> > slowly trickle in the different independent changes?
>
> My original plan was to merge them incrementally, but Andrew is
> right that we should give the whole set as much testing as
> possible.
>
> I have done all the cleanups Andrew asked and fixed the bugs
> that I found after that merge/cleanup.  Your bug is the one
> I still need to fix before giving Andrew a whole new set of
> split LRU patches to merge.
>
> (afterwards, I will go incremental fixes only - the cleanups
> he asked for were just too big to do as incrementals)

OK.
--
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/