linux-kernel - Re: Linux 2.6.27-rc3: kernel BUG at mm/vmalloc.c

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:	Fri, 22 Aug 2008 17:21:21 -0400
From:	Jeff King <peff@...f.net>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Junio C Hamano <gitster@...ox.com>, pasky@...e.cz,
	Alan.Brunelle@...com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	git@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.27-rc3: kernel BUG at mm/vmalloc.c - bisected

On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 02:16:51PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:

> Sure, but
> 
> a) whoever added a change like that without also causing the build to
>    break is slappable and

Well, the point is to find out _who_ to slap. ;)

> b) there are now two commits (one in each branch) either one of
>    which, when applied on top of the other branch will introduce the
>    regression.
> 
>    That's useful infomation, but we don't know how to get
>    git-bisect to give it to us.
>
> It's pretty simple.  If git-bisect tells us that the regression was
> introduced by a merge commit, we want to perform a bisection within
> that merge's individual commits.

I mentioned linearizing the two lines of development in another
message in this thread. But there are, of course, two linearizations,
neither of which might be possible to generate automatically, and one
might give you a better answer than the other.

-Peff
--
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/