linux-kernel - Re: Revert 9745cdb36da83aeec198650b410ca06304cf792 ("select: use freezable blocking call")?

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: <5270270E.10905@intel.com>
Date:	Tue, 29 Oct 2013 22:22:22 +0100
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
To:	Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl>
CC:	Colin Cross <ccross@...roid.com>,
	Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Revert 9745cdb36da83aeec198650b410ca06304cf792 ("select: use
 freezable blocking call")?

On 10/29/2013 10:15 PM, Paul Bolle wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-10-29 at 21:58 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On 10/29/2013 8:41 PM, Paul Bolle wrote:
>>> 4) Should this commit be reverted? Or is there a better fix?
>> In short, yes, it should.
>>
>> I've already queued up a revert of something very similar and I'm going
>> to revert this one too.
> If you do, the revert should go into stable for v3.11+ too, shouldn't
> it?

I'll ask stable to pick it up later (or you can do that too).

Thanks,
Rafael

--
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/