linux-kernel - Re: [git pull] cpus4096 fixes

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: <488E0BFF.7080607@sgi.com>
Date:	Mon, 28 Jul 2008 11:12:15 -0700
From:	Mike Travis <travis@....com>
To:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
CC:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [git pull] cpus4096 fixes

Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Monday 28 July 2008 13:06:36 Andrew Morton wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 10:42:12 +1000 Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au> 
> wrote:
>>> The 4k CPU patches have been sliding in without review up until now.
>> wot?
> 
> This surprises you?  I stumbled across the cpumask_of_cpu() bug because I 
> happened to want it for stop_machine and read the damned code.  But it lead 
> me to the surrounding code, which is pretty questionable.  An arch-specific 
> map, rather than depending on NR_CPUS?  Adding set_cpus_allowed_ptr() instead 
> of changing set_cpus_allowed()?  Macros which declare things and may or may 
> not do an allocation/free?  Finally a patch so horrifically ugly that it 
> can't be ignored any more gets all the way to Linus.
> 
> Overall, it seems like an attempt to sneak in gradual workarounds for cpumasks 
> on the stack, rather than a coherent plan.  I understand the temptation to 
> avoid an "are we prepared to pay this price for large NR_CPUS?" discussion, 
> but we need it anyway.
> 
> And that's what I call "review".
> Rusty.


I'm not sure I can respond to all, but some of this was brought up in discussions
previously, and I always took the advice and objections that came up.  I don't
think anything went in that wasn't (at least in general) agreed upon by those that
reviewed any of my changes.  If I did some things wrong, I apologize and I'll take
full blame ("rookie mistakes?" ;-).

Thanks,
Mike
--
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/