linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] percpu 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: <alpine.LFD.2.01.0906181421460.16802@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Thu, 18 Jun 2009 14:22:20 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, kyle@...artin.ca
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] percpu for 2.6.31

On Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Tejun Heo wrote:
> 
> Please pull from percpu-for-linus git tree from:
> 
>     git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tj/percpu.git for-linus

I'm very unhappy with this kind of crap.

Has it been tested AT ALL? Apparently not.

	arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c:98: error: multiple storage classes in declaration specifiers
	arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c:98: error: non-static declaration of ‘per_cpu__mces_seen’ follows static declaration
	arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c:98: note: previous declaration of ‘per_cpu__mces_seen’ was here
	.. and tons of other similar errors ..

and it was apparently done on purpose, for no good reason. The bug with 
static per-cpu variables is only for some broken architectures.

Even the _documentation_ uses "static DEFINE_PER_CPU(..)" for chissake!

To make matters worse, this whole series was clearly rebased (or applied 
from some other queue) just _minutes_ before sending it to me. No wonder 
it had zero testing:

 - commit:
	Date: Thu Jun 18 16:22:05 2009 +0900
 - email:
	Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 17:07:16 +0900

I'm not pulling it. Or rather, I pulled it, ended up doing other work, 
noticed the problems, and had to re-do my whole tree because I refuse to 
have sh*t like this in the kernel.

And I'm not going to pull trees that get rebased like this with basically 
no testing before sending it to me. There's a reason I don't like 
rebasing.

			Linus
--
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/