linux-kernel - Re: [regression] Crash in wb_clear

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: <20100706065636.GB16224@elte.hu>
Date:	Tue, 6 Jul 2010 08:56:36 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Bill Davidsen <davidsen@....com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Subject: Re: [regression] Crash in wb_clear_pending()


* Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk> wrote:

> On 2010-07-06 08:47, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > * Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > 
> >> On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 2:19 PM, Bill Davidsen <davidsen@....com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Absent a small fix, and given that the big fix has a lot more testing than
> >>> any new patch might, in this case the quickie might be undesirable.
> >>> Particularly since posters here seem sure that code will be replaced in the
> >>> next version anyway, and lightly tested patch to obsolete code is actually
> >>> less conservative.
> >>
> >> I have to agree. Especially as the "big patch" just removes the fragile code 
> >> that caused the problem in the first place. So in this case I do suspect 
> >> that the bigger patch ends up being the safer one.
> > 
> > Yeah, i agree - especially since the smaller patch is still pretty large (not 
> > a oneliner), plus it does not appear that the precise failure mode is fully 
> > understood either.
> 
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/7/5/232
> 
> It's about as straight forward as it can be :-)

Yeah, i meant Christoph's first patch. Yours looks simple enough but from the 
discussion it wasnt clear (to me) yet whether it would fix the bug.

Thanks,

	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/