linux-kernel - Re: dcache shrink list corruption?

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, 6 May 2014 10:01:21 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: dcache shrink list corruption?

On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 9:52 AM, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> OK...  There's one more thing I would like to put there, if you are going to
> be away for the week.  It has sat in -next for a while, and it could stay
> there, except that there's a _lot_ of followups touching stuff all over the
> tree and I'd obviously prefer those to go into subsystem trees.  Which
> means inter-tree dependencies ;-/  Would you be OK if I included that one
> into pull request?  It just turns kvfree() into inline and takes it to
> mm.h, next to is_vmalloc_addr();

Is there any particular reason for inlining this? I'd actually rather
not, _especially_ if it means that a lot of "is_vmalloc_addr()" usage
goes away and we may end up with this as a real interface.

But no, I don't hate the patch.

              Linus
--
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/