linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] jump label: introduce static

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:	Wed, 5 Jan 2011 21:18:01 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	David Daney <ddaney@...iumnetworks.com>
Cc:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>,
	Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>, peterz@...radead.org,
	mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca, tglx@...utronix.de,
	andi@...stfloor.org, roland@...hat.com, rth@...hat.com,
	masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com, fweisbec@...il.com,
	avi@...hat.com, davem@...emloft.net, sam@...nborg.org,
	michael@...erman.id.au, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] jump label: introduce static_branch()


* David Daney <ddaney@...iumnetworks.com> wrote:

> On 01/05/2011 11:50 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> >* David Daney<ddaney@...iumnetworks.com>  wrote:
> >
> >>On 01/05/2011 11:14 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >>>
> >>>* H. Peter Anvin<hpa@...or.com>   wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>On 01/05/2011 09:43 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >>>>>On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 09:32 -0800, David Daney wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>This patch will conflict with the MIPS jump label support that Ralf has
> >>>>>>queued up for 2.6.38.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Can you disable that support for now? As Linus said at Kernel Summit,
> >>>>>other archs jumped too quickly onto the jump label band wagon. This
> >>>>>change really needs to get in, and IMO, it is more critical to clean up
> >>>>>the jump label code than to have other archs implementing it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Ralf is really good... perhaps we can get the conflicts resolved?
> >>>
> >>>Yep, the best Git-ish way to handle that is to resolve the conflicts whenever they
> >>>happen - i.e. whoever merges his tree upstream later. No need for anyone to 'wait'
> >>>or undo anything.
> >>>
> >>
> >>There will be no git conflicts, as the affected files are disjoint.
> >
> >I regularly resolve semantic conflicts in merge commits - or in the first followup
> >commit.
> >
> 
> But I am guessing that neither you, nor Linus, regularly build MIPS
> kernels with GCC-4.5.x *and* jump label support enabled.  [...]

I build MIPS defconfig kernels at least once per day - so at least serious, 
wide-ranging issues should not slip through. Rarer combos possibly - but that's true 
of pretty much anything.

> [...] So how would such semantic conflict ever be detected?  I would expect the 
> conflict to first occur when Linus pulls Ralf's tree.

If that slips through then a fix is queued up?

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/