linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] Early boot SLAB for 2.6.31

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: <20090610205026.GC8147@elte.hu>
Date:	Wed, 10 Jun 2009 22:50:26 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	cl@...ux-foundation.org, hannes@...xchg.org, mpm@...enic.com,
	npiggin@...e.de, yinghai@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Early boot SLAB for 2.6.31


* Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi> wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 11:43 PM, Ingo Molnar<mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
> >
> > * Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi> wrote:
> >
> >> Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, 10 Jun 2009, Pekka J Enberg wrote:
> >>
> >>>> I already have patches for that but they are against the -tip
> >>>> tree so I think we ought to just merge this series to mainline
> >>>> and fix everything up in subsystem trees for 2.6.31 proper.
> >>>
> >>> Hmm. Are there any reasons why the scheduler fixups can't go in
> >>> this series? Do they depend on other things in -tip?
> >>
> >> The patches are rebased to -tip, yeah. I can do a version against
> >> your tree if you want but that will mean merge conflicts for Ingo.
> >> Hmm?
> >
> > I'm a tiny bit nervous about the tested-ness of the patches. Such
> > stuff rarely works at first try. But it's obviously nice changes.
> 
> Yeah, I was thinking of sitting on them until 2.6.32 and put them 
> into linux-next after the merge window closes. [...]

Nah, that would be unreasonably long.

> [...] But Linus seems to want them and with the fallback in place, 
> we can probably fix any fall out quite easily.

Yeah.

> > What kind of conflicts are there against -tip? The diffstat 
> > suggests it's mostly in-SLAB code, right? There shouldnt be much 
> > to conflict, except kmemcheck - which has more or less trivial 
> > callbacks there.
> 
> The conflicting bits are the patches that remove bootmem allocator 
> uses in arch/x86 and kernel/sched.c.

Give me an hour and i'll get some minimal testing done.

	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/