linux-kernel - Re: [Stable-review] [064/123] sched: Protect task->cpus_allowed access in sched

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]

Date:	Sat, 18 Sep 2010 15:19:56 -0700
From:	Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
To:	Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...nel.org,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, stable-review@...nel.org,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk
Subject: Re: [Stable-review] [064/123] sched: Protect task->cpus_allowed
	access in sched_getaffinity()

On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 09:32:28PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> I'm somewhat disturbed by the number of non-trivial scheduler changes
> here.  How well have these been tested as applied to the 2.6.32.y
> branch?

Mike has tested these very well and gotten the ACK for them to go in
from Ingo and Peter.

I think they are also currently shipping in one distro's enterprise
kernel as well, but am not quite sure...

Ben, feel free to test them yourself and report any problems, but at the
least, they do fix one reported problem, and lots of others as well.

thanks,

greg k-h
--
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/