linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86_64: fix delayed signals

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.1.10.0807101806330.2936@woody.linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Thu, 10 Jul 2008 18:18:37 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86_64: fix delayed signals

On Thu, 10 Jul 2008, Roland McGrath wrote:
> 
> The "actual" downsides include numerous unknowns, and I always forget
> not to be surprised when you aren't scared that we have no idea what-all
> the code might actually do.

You're just grand-standing here.

The fact is, this has been "broken" for a long long time. A lot of 
applications (realistically, probably _all_ current 64-bit apps) have been 
tested with the old behaviour.

The thing is, I'm simply not the _least_ nervous about behavior that we've 
obviously had for a long time. And you shouldn't be either - nor should 
you try to make up some bogus argument to the contrary.

You should be scared about the case that IS NOT tested - which is by 
definition the new behaviour (admittedly only for 64-bit apps). Claiming 
anything else is just stupid and dishonest.

So stop making up _bad_ arguments. You do have a good one: the fact that 
x86-32 apparently works the way it works. But then you just irritate me 
with your idiotic other ones about how things are "supposed" to work.

So just be honest: you didn't have any _actual_ downsides that you knew 
about. Which was what I wondered about and asked about.

Those things make a big difference when I'm just about ready to cut a new 
release. This is _clearly_ not a regression (unless you talk about things 
from years and years ago), and apparently you don't have any actual code 
that is broken - just your expectations.

In short, it doesn't smell like something I should apply under -rc9 rules.

[ And dammit, I wish more developers would ask themselves that question: 
  "Does this patch need to go in when we're very late in the -rc 
  sequence?". Or at least not then try to grand-stand and avoid the 
  question I asked. ]

		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/