linux-kernel - Re: Regression from 3.4.9 to 3.4.16 "stable" kernel

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:	Mon, 29 Oct 2012 18:20:09 -0700
From:	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
To:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Mark Lord <kernel@...savvy.com>
Cc:	Jacob Shin <jacob.shin@....com>,
	Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>, Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>,
	stable@...r.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: Regression from 3.4.9 to 3.4.16 "stable" kernel

On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 07:00:54PM -0400, Mark Lord wrote:
>> Both systems feel much more sluggish than usual with 3.4.16 running.
>> Reverted them both back to earlier kernels (3.4.9, 3.4.4-PAE),
>> and the usual responsive feel has returned.
>>
>> Vague, I know, but something bad happened in there somewhere.
>
> That's too vague for me to do anything with, sorry.  Bisection would be
> good if you can figure out how to measure this.

yes, at least you can post boot log of working kernel and not working kernel.
then we could figure out if there is any corner case is not handled or
uncovered.
--
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/