linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] Fixes for hugetlbfs-related problems on shared memory

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:	Wed, 27 May 2009 13:14:37 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
Cc:	mingo@...e.hu, stable@...nel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk,
	Lee.Schermerhorn@...com, kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com,
	starlight@...nacle.cx, ebmunson@...ibm.com, agl@...ibm.com,
	apw@...onical.com, wli@...ementarian.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Fixes for hugetlbfs-related problems on shared
 memory

On Wed, 27 May 2009 12:12:27 +0100
Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie> wrote:

> The following two patches are required to fix problems reported by
> starlight@...nacle.cx. The tests cases both involve two processes interacting
> with shared memory segments backed by hugetlbfs.

Thanks.

Both of these address http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13302, yes?
I added that info to the changelogs, to close the loop.

Ingo, I'd propose merging both these together rather than routing one
via the x86 tree, OK?

Question is: when?  Are we confident enough to merge it into 2.6.30
now, or should we hold off for 2.6.30.1?  I guess we have a week or
more, and if the changes do break something, we can fix that in
2.6.30.1 ;)

--
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/