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  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:	Sun, 4 Jan 2015 21:37:24 +0100
From:	Pavel Machek <>
To:	Nicolas Pitre <>
	Linus Torvalds <>,
	kernel list <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert 9fc2105aeaaf56b0cf75296a84702d0f9e64437b to fix
 pyaudio (and probably more)

On Sun 2015-01-04 15:25:02, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Jan 2015, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > On Sun 2015-01-04 15:03:02, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > > If that is still unacceptable to you for whatever reason, then the least 
> > > wrong compromize should be:
> > > 
> > > 	seq_printf(m, "BogoMIPS\t: 1.00\n");
> > > 
> > > That'D allow for those broken applications to run while making clear 
> > > that the provided value is phony. I was about to suggest 0.00 but that 
> > > could trigger a divide by zero error somewhere I suppose.
> > 
> > I don't know what 1.00 will cause, and neither do you, so what about
> > simply reverting the bad patch?
> Because the patch wasn't "bad".  It did solve a recurring support 
> problem where people did actually complain on the list because the value 
> was not what they would have liked.  Removing this meaningless value did 
> actually fix that support issue as no more complaints came through for 
> the last 1.3 year, and is actually the only way for user space to be 
> fixed too.

People complain on the list, so what? People complain about systemd,
too. We ignore them.

Alternatively, just don't touch the bogomips computation. It is not
that much of maintainance burden. You can probably also get away with
replacing bogomips with actual cpu frequency.

Replacing it with 1 is asking for trouble.

See the links I quoted. Removing the value caused real problems. (And
I still did not hear so much as "sorry".) Now you propose to put
obviously wrong value in there, and claim it is not a
problem... because it takes time before someone debugs breakage you
want to cause.,ssl&ei=06OpVJWuIcPkUsOTgbAL

First 2 screens in google are full of poor folks debugging this
(cesky, pictures)
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists