linux-kernel - Re: [ 41/64] spinlocks and preemption points need to be at least compiler barriers

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: <20130410230025.GA4750@kroah.com>
Date:	Wed, 10 Apr 2013 16:00:25 -0700
From:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [ 41/64] spinlocks and preemption points need to be at least
 compiler barriers

On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 03:54:44PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > Note for stable: use discretion when/if applying this.  As mentioned,
> > this bug may never have actually bitten anybody, and gcc may never have
> > done the required code motion for it to possibly ever trigger in
> > practice.
> 
> No objections, I just wanted to make sure the stable people had
> noticed this message to them...

Yeah, I saw it, and it looks like a valid thing to apply.

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/