linux-kernel - Re: [Bug #11308] tbench regression on each kernel release from 2.6.22 -> 2.6.28

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: <20080917104044.GC18764@elte.hu>
Date:	Wed, 17 Sep 2008 12:40:44 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Cc:	Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Bug #11308] tbench regression on each kernel release from
	2.6.22 -&gt; 2.6.28


* Mike Galbraith <efault@....de> wrote:

> On Wed, 2008-09-17 at 06:40 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 17:07 +0300, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> 
> > > One additional sanity check could be to rebase security 6f0f0fd4963 on top 
> > > of the c142bda458a and then see if bisection among those security commits 
> > > on top yields to the the same result... Though I doubt it can change much 
> > > because there was not that much relevant non-security things in the merge 
> > > in question.
> > 
> > I'm not a master of git-foo, so that is not an option.  However, a dinky
> > bisection c142bda4..847106f very clearly says...
> > 
> > marge:..kernel/linux-2.6.27.git # git bisect bad
> > 6f0f0fd496333777d53daff21a4e3b28c4d03a6d is first bad commit
> > commit 6f0f0fd496333777d53daff21a4e3b28c4d03a6d
> > Author: James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
> > Date:   Thu Jul 10 17:02:07 2008 +0900
> > 
> >     security: remove register_security hook
> > 
> >     The register security hook is no longer required, as the capability
> >     module is always registered.  LSMs wishing to stack capability as
> >     a secondary module should do so explicitly.
> > 
> >     Signed-off-by: James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
> >     Acked-by: Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>
> >     Acked-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>
> > 
> > :040000 040000 0177ef46d305e51e27bfcc4350a40577f8ba8d3d 64b64c10a424df4539653a8ee34f1a2329300931 M      include
> > :040000 040000 e318891e514de674fd064f6bfad70d5633b1aff1 0dbb38d5aa7fc3e4b2e09dc65796ce7cd5faeb26 M      security
> 
> Which is high grade horse-pookey.

perhaps re-test commit 6f0f0fd49 and its parent commit, 93cbace7a0.

It looks like a potentially bogus bisection result, but _maybe_ it has 
relevance: changes the size of "struct security_operations", which could 
have alignment and layout effects on all sorts of kernel variables, 
kmalloc sizes, etc.

	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/