linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RESEND v3 1/6] powerpc: atomic: Make *xchg and *cmpxchg a full barrier

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:	Wed, 14 Oct 2015 17:26:53 +0800
From:	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Waiman Long <waiman.long@...com>,
	Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND v3 1/6] powerpc: atomic: Make *xchg and *cmpxchg a
 full barrier

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 10:06:13AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 08:51:34AM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:10:00AM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> 
> > > Thanks for fixing this. In future you should send a patch like this as a
> > > separate patch. I've not been paying attention to it because I assumed it was
> > 
> > Got it. However, here is the thing, in previous version, this fix
> > depends on some of other patches in this patchset. So to make this fix
> > applied cleanly, I reorder my patchset to put this patch first, and the
> > result is that some of other patches in this patchset depends on
> > this(they need to remove code modified by this patch).
> > 
> > So I guess I'd better to stop Cc stable for this one, and wait until
> > this patchset merged and send a separate patch for -stable tree. Does
> > that work for you? I think this is what Peter want to suggests me to do
> > when he asked me about this, right, Peter?
> 
> I don't think I had explicit thoughts about any of that, just that it
> might make sense to have this patch not depend on the rest such that it
> could indeed be stuffed into stable.
> 

Got that. Sorry for misunderstanding you...

> I'll leave the details up to Michael since he's PPC maintainer.

Michael and Peter, rest of this patchset depends on commits which are
currently in the locking/core branch of the tip, so I would like it as a
whole queued there. Besides, I will keep this patch Cc'ed to stable in
future versions, that works for you both?

Regards,
Boqun

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (474 bytes)