linux-kernel - Re: frequent lockups in 3.18rc4

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: <CAEUsAPYthwHxopuiBcGg4_nnBDDsS2jrTw4pDFiov38awsFodA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 3 Dec 2014 00:02:32 -0600
From:	Chris Rorvick <chris@...vick.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Dâniel Fraga <fragabr@...il.com>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: frequent lockups in 3.18rc4

On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 10:14 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> Put another way: "bad" is generally more trustworthy (because you
> actively saw the bug),

Makes sense, but ...

> while a "good" _before_ a subsequent bad is
> also trustworthy (because if the "good" kernel contained the bug and
> you should have marked it bad, we'd then go on to test all the commits
> that were *not* the bug, so we'd never see a "bad" kernel again).

wouldn't marking a bad commit "good" cause you to not see a *good*
kernel again?  Marking it "good" would seem push the search away from
the bug toward the current "bad" commit.
--
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/