linux-kernel - Re: [STABLE] kernel oops which can be fixed by peterz's patches

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: <20160216084435.GQ6357@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Tue, 16 Feb 2016 09:44:35 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
Cc:	stable@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	gregkh@...uxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [STABLE] kernel oops which can be fixed by peterz's patches

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 04:08:37PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 04:25:03PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 10:14:44AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > So the reason I didn't mark them for stable is that they were non
> > > trivial, however they've been in for a while now and nothing broke, so I
> > > suppose backporting them isn't a problem.
> > 
> > Hello,
> > 
> > What do you think about the way to solve this oops problem? Could you just
> > give your opinion of the way? Or ack or nack about this backporting?
> 
> Or would it be better to create a new simple patch with which we can solve
> the oops problem, because your patch is too complicated to backport to
> stable tree? What do you think about that?

I would prefer just backporting existing stuff, we know that works.

A separate patch for stable doesn't make sense to me; you get extra
chances for fail and a divergent code-base.