linux-kernel - Re: balance storm

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: <20140527131325.GF5444@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Tue, 27 May 2014 15:13:25 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Libo Chen <libo.chen@...wei.com>
Cc:	Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>, tglx@...utronix.de,
	mingo@...e.hu, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: balance storm

On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 08:55:20PM +0800, Libo Chen wrote:
> On 2014/5/27 17:48, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> > In any case, I'm not sure what the 'regression' report is against, as
> > there's only a single kernel version mentioned: 3.4, and that's almost a

> upstream has the same problem, I have mentioned before.

Not on anything that landed in my inbox I think, but that's not the
point. For a regression report you need _2_ kernel versions, one with
and one without the 'problem'.

Providing one (or two) that have a problem doesn't qualify.

In any case, I didn't see the original email, but I got the impression
that it was complaining about 'new' behaviour from the bits I did see as
quoted.
--
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/