linux-kernel - Re: Regression in 2.6.27-rc1 for set_cpus_allowed

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20080811225557.GA2068@elte.hu>
Date:	Tue, 12 Aug 2008 00:55:57 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Max Krasnyansky <maxk@...lcomm.com>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@...il.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	"Langsdorf, Mark" <mark.langsdorf@....com>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: Regression in 2.6.27-rc1 for set_cpus_allowed_ptr


* Max Krasnyansky <maxk@...lcomm.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Max Krasnyansky <maxk@...lcomm.com> wrote:
> > 
> >>> And I was hoping to do -rc3 today. Can I please have pull-requests for the 
> >>> appropriate urgent scheduler/x86 fixes? Or should I just take these as 
> >>> patches?
> >> It'd be nice if -rc3 included my cpuset patch so that we could put circular
> >> locking issues in the cpu hotplug path to the rest.
> >> Ingo, I'm talking about this:
> >> 	[PATCH] cpuset: Rework sched domains and CPU hotplug handling (take 4)
> > 
> > the latest (-v4) version of the patch was submitted just half an hour 
> > ago and it's rather large/complex, with a few unrelated changes 
> > (whitespace, etc.) mixed in as well. I'd like to wait for Paul's final 
> > ack for -v4 (he has already agreed with the approach in general), and 
> > wanted to have it tested myself as well, at least minimally.
> 
> Fair enough.
> 
> btw Whitespace and other cosmetic changes were requested by reviewers.

yeah - it just makes it a tiny bit harder decision whether to queue up a 
patch in the urgent path.

It's better to keep cleanups separate - that way any typos and 
unintended bugs in cleanups are more obvious as well. (because later on 
a person debugging a breakage does not have to wonder about whether a 
change's side-effects were intended or not.)

But your patch certainly looks OK standalone as well, just IMO not as a 
very-last-minute patch. (No strong feelings though, your patch should 
not break anything in the normal !CPUSETS or the CPUSETS+no-cpuset-used 
usecases.)

	Ingo
--
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/