linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ARM: BUG() dies silently

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: <20110919144313.GU16381@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date:	Mon, 19 Sep 2011 15:43:13 +0100
From:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
To:	"Ramirez Luna, Omar" <omar.ramirez@...com>
Cc:	Rabin Vincent <rabin@....in>,
	lak <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	lk <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: BUG() dies silently

On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 09:26:49AM -0500, Ramirez Luna, Omar wrote:
> Hi
> 
> On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 1:07 AM, Rabin Vincent <rabin@....in> wrote:
> > If the "Use generic BUG() handler" patch is only scheduled for the next
> > merge window and not for 3.1, can this patch be merged instead for 3.1
> > and -stable?  This problem is easily seen with GCC 4.6.
> 
> I can send it for both and let the maintainers decide.
> 
> Russell, do you give your ack?

I think it's too large a change for -stable and 3.1 - let's get it into
3.2 first, and make sure no one sees any regressions there.  Then we can
think about submitting it to stable once its proven itself.
--
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/