linux-kernel - Re: Boot failure on x86_64 (OOPS set_cpu_sibling

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: <20090804144741.GL7746@elte.hu>
Date:	Tue, 4 Aug 2009 16:47:41 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Borislav Petkov <borislav.petkov@....com>
Cc:	Andreas Herrmann <andreas.herrmann3@....com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Sachin Sant <sachinp@...ibm.com>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: Boot failure on x86_64 (OOPS set_cpu_sibling_map() )


* Borislav Petkov <borislav.petkov@....com> wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 03:50:29PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > Mind preparing a separate branch for it (.31-rc5 based) and send me 
> > > > a pull request so that we can share the commit between the EDAC tree 
> > > > and the x86 tree?
> > > 
> > > Well, Andreas says the patches need a little polishing and he'll 
> > > be sending updated versions soon so you can pick them up. And 
> > > since the EDAC MCE stuff might still change before .32 merge 
> > > window opens, let's synchronize our pull requests instead. In the 
> > > meantime, I'll be rediffing the EDAC stuff against -tip for 
> > > linux-next.
> > 
> > Would you rebase just due to this commit?
> 
> No, I wanted to keep the opportunity to be able to rebase the 
> whole series until the very last minute before the merge window, 
> should anything need to be changed...

Note that's the wrong workflow. We dont rebase Git trees really just 
because 'something needs to be changed' - we make sure all commits 
make sense, we fix bugs and append new changes to the end. That 
results in a far better end result than a constant rebasing 
workflow. See various mails from Linus on lkml about this topic. (i 
have no handy URL for this now - maybe someone else has)

> > No need for that, feel free to carry it until Andreas sends an 
> > updated version. Then i can put it into a separate .31-rc5 based 
> > topic that you can pull into the EDAC tree.
> 
> ... and this is basically what I had in mind: After you pull them 
> in, I'll rebase my branch against yours for linux-next. I see that 
> Stephen pulls edac before -tip in linux-next so I'll ask him 
> nicely to reorder those. This approach makes most sense anyways 
> since edac relies on a bunch of x86 facilities (topology bits, 
> rd/wrmsr_on_cpus, mcheck etc) and it is only natural that it goes 
> second in linux-next, right?
> 
> Then the pull requests will go out in the same order during the 
> merge window and we should be fine.

ok. I'll wait for Andreas's next version of the patch. Feel free to 
carry the interim version - just please dont crash the x86 bootup 
;-)

	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/