linux-kernel - Re: [git pull] cpus4096 tree, part 3

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: <20090126154427.70e3d594.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Mon, 26 Jan 2009 15:44:27 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	yinghan@...gle.com, npiggin@...e.de, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
	travis@....com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com, suresh.b.siddha@...el.com,
	arjan@...radead.org, hpa@...or.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
	mikew@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [git pull] cpus4096 tree, part 3

On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 00:21:39 +0100
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:

> 
> * Ying Han <yinghan@...gle.com> wrote:
> 
> > Thank you Ingo and Andrew for the comments. I will take a look into it 
> > ASAP and updates it here.
> 
> Note, my objection wasnt a hard NAK - just an observation. If all things 
> considered Andrew still favors the VM_FAULT_RETRY approach then that's 
> fine too i guess.
> 
> It's just that a quick look gave me the feeling of a retry flag tacked on 
> to an existing codepath [and all the micro-overhead and complexity that 
> this brings], instead of a clean refactoring of pagefault handling 
> functionality into a higher MM level retry loop.
> 
> So the alternative has to be looked at and rejected because it's 
> technically inferior - not because it's more difficult to implement. 
> (which it certainly is)
> 

I have wobbly feelings about this patch.  There are your issues, and a
long string of problems and fixes.  And my recent half-assed
linux-next-related fix which I didn't really think about.

It all needs a revisit/rereview/reunderstand cycle.
--
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/