linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] livepatch: Cleanup page permission changes

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: <20151104161347.GC29899@treble.redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 4 Nov 2015 10:13:47 -0600
From:	Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To:	Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>
Cc:	Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>,
	Seth Jennings <sjenning@...hat.com>,
	Vojtech Pavlik <vojtech@...e.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, live-patching@...r.kernel.org,
	"Cyril B." <cbay@...aysdata.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] livepatch: Cleanup page permission changes

On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 10:10:06AM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 10:18:29AM +0100, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> > On Tue, 3 Nov 2015, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > 
> > > It's probably a good idea to keep the patches bisectable, so I made this
> > > a separate patch which applies on top of the first one.
> > > 
> > > (Note that it completely removes all the code from the first patch, so
> > > there's no need for a v2 of the first patch which would have had
> > > Miroslav's suggested style changes.)
> > 
> > I like this patch and it's something I'd like to queue for 4.4, but given 
> > the fact that the original "[PATCH] x86/livepatch: Fix crash with 
> > !CONFIG_DEBUG_SET_MODULE_RONX" wasn't queued in any tree yet, I don't 
> > think that sending it as a followup patch is of any use.
> > 
> > So if you agree, I'll just fold the two patches together and use the 
> > changelog below, and queue it for merge with Linus.
> 
> I kept them separate because the first patch is a low risk bug fix, and
> the second is a slightly higher risk cleanup.
> 
> Would it make sense to put the first one into 4.4 and queue the second
> one for 4.5?

BTW, the second one is still pretty low risk, so it's fine with me if
you decide you still want to squash them for 4.4.

-- 
Josh
--
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/