linux-kernel - Re: [tip:perf/uprobes] uprobes, mm, x86: Add the ability to install and remove uprobes breakpoints

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:	Tue, 22 May 2012 16:50:35 +1000
From:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, mingo@...hat.com,
	a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, peterz@...radead.org, anton@...hat.com,
	rostedt@...dmis.org, tglx@...utronix.de, oleg@...hat.com,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hpa@...or.com,
	jkenisto@...ibm.com, andi@...stfloor.org, hch@...radead.org,
	ananth@...ibm.com, vda.linux@...glemail.com,
	masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com, acme@...radead.org,
	srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, roland@...k.frob.com, mingo@...e.hu,
	linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip:perf/uprobes] uprobes, mm, x86: Add the ability to install
 and remove uprobes breakpoints

Hi Andrew,

On Mon, 21 May 2012 19:27:00 -0700 Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 22 May 2012 11:16:18 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> 
> > I have been meaning to talk to you about basing the majority of your
> > patch series on Linus' tree.  This would give it mush greater stability
> > and would make the merge resolution my problem (and Linus', of course).
> 
> Confused.  None of those conflicts have anything to do with the -mm
> patches: the only trees involved there are mainline and
> trees-in-next-other-than-mm.

Right, its a separate issue.  Though I do end up coping with conflicts in
the -mm tree as I have to rebase it everyday.

> > There will be bits that may need to be based on other work in linux-next,
> > but I suspect that it is not very much.
> 
> Well, there are a number of reasons why I base off linux-next.  To see
> whether others have merged patches which I have merged (and, sometimes,
> missed later fixes to them).  Explicit fixes against -next material. 
> To get visibility into upcoming merge problems.  And so that I and
> others test -next too.

I guess I see a separation between what you are working on and what you
are publishing.  You used to publish a reasonable amount of subseries for
others and most of this I suspect could just be based on Linus' tree.
Anyway, not a big problem except when I get days like yesterday (when I
saw some of the conflicts you are noting).

> Basing -mm on next is never a problem (for me).  What is a problem is
> the mess which happens when people merge things into mainline which are
> (I assume) either slightly different from what they merged in -next or
> which never were in -next at all.

Indeed.  Some of what you have seen this time is just last minute updates
of other trees and bug fixes in Linus' tree.  We had about 2000 (net)
commits added to linux-next in the past week (800+ over the weekend).
Some of this has now migrated to Linus' tree already.

> That's guessing - it's a long time since I sat down and worked out exactly
> what is causing this.

Which is not a trivial problem.  I will run my stats script and see what
pops out.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@...b.auug.org.au

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped