linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] Additional x86 fixes for 2.6.31-rc5

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.2.01.0908021913130.3352@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Sun, 2 Aug 2009 19:14:11 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Additional x86 fixes for 2.6.31-rc5



On Mon, 3 Aug 2009, Tejun Heo wrote:
> 
> Do you want to queue it for 2.6.31?

Yeah, no.

>			 Given that the generated code
> changes compared to the previous kernels (both pre and post percpu
> stuff), I think it would be safer to queue it for 2.6.32 window.  I
> would be happy to carry it in the percpu tree.

Please do. I don't want it for 31, and I do want it to get more testing. I 
ran with it for a few days, and saw no problems, and it looked obvious 
enough, but there just isn't any overriding reason for it to be in 31.

		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/