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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20121030163022.GA16449@kroah.com>
Date:	Tue, 30 Oct 2012 09:30:22 -0700
From:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:	Mark Lord <kernel@...savvy.com>
Cc:	Jacob Shin <jacob.shin@....com>,
	Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>,
	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>, 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 Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 12:53:06AM -0400, Mark Lord wrote:
> On 12-10-29 07:03 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 07:00:54PM -0400, Mark Lord wrote:
> >> There's something else very wrong when going from 3.4.9 to 3.4.16.
> >> I've done it on two machines here, one the AMD-450 server (64-bit),
> >> and the other my main notebook (Core2duo 32-bit-PAE).
> >>
> >> 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.
> 
> Well, I'd bet Donkeys to Daises that reverting the kernel/sched.c changes
> will probably fix the responsiveness, but I haven't done that yet.
> I've lost enough time already debugging the other issues.
> 
> This is more just an indication that perhaps -stable patches need better review
> than they're getting.  Take the setup.c breakage: as soon as I pointed it out,
> a few people jumped in with knowledge that it was broken, and that patches
> existed to fix it.

There will always be bugs, fixing them quickly is the best that we can
do.

> That kind of thing should be happening before a -stable release,
> though I don't know how you would get the Right People to look
> at this stuff then rather than after the fact.  Maybe a topic
> for a future kernel summit or something.

I send patches to everyone involved, and there's a -rc period where
people are _supposed_ to test things out.  If you know of a better way
to get other people to test and review, please let me know, this is the
best that we have come up with so far.

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/